Jantri rates for premium determination apply on the Collector’s sanction date, not the application date.

The petitioner agreed to purchase Block No. 349, Village Kadodara, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat, a new-tenure land owned by Kevalbhai Sukhabhai Kantharia.

The owner’s application for permission to sell/use the land for non-agricultural purposes was initially rejected on 25 April 1985; a subsequent application dated 26 November 1987 resulted in the Deputy Collector’s order dated 21 April 1988 granting permission and fixing premium at ₹32,333.

The land was sold to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 9 May 1995.

After approximately eight years, the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, on the ground that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

The Collector’s order was challenged and the matter was remanded by the SSRD for fresh consideration after notice to the deceased owner’s legal heirs.

On remand, the Collector, by order dated 30 September 2006, determined premium at ₹1,512 per square metre and directed payment of approximately ₹1,04,47,944 after crediting the earlier premium.

The petitioner deposited ₹15,00,000 and sought time to pay the balance; the Collector granted 21 days’ further time.

The SSRD rejected the petitioner’s challenge. The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 seeking quashing of the impugned orders, reassessment at the rates prevailing on the dates of the earlier applications, and refund of the amount deposited.

Whether the Collector’s initiation of suo motu proceedings after a delay of approximately eight years under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was legally sustainable

Whether the premium was required to be calculated on the basis of the Jantri/market rates prevailing on the date of the petitioner’s predecessor’s applications, rather than on the date of the Collector’s decision/sanction

Whether the petitioner, having accepted the Collector’s determination and deposited ₹15,00,000 towards the premium, could subsequently challenge the quantification of premium

Whether the premium determined for the adjoining Block No. 350 at ₹500 per square metre rendered the premium of ₹1,512 per square metre for Block No. 349 arbitrary or discriminatory

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 governs revisional intervention by the revenue authorities, while Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act concerns restrictions and permission relating to transfers of new-tenure agricultural land.

Relying on Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55009, the Court held that where the statute requires previous sanction, the applicable Jantri rate is the rate prevailing on the date of sanction or decision by the Collector, not the date of the application.

The Court distinguished State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187, concerning the requirement that revisional powers be exercised within a reasonable time, because the petitioner had accepted and partly implemented the subsequent premium determination.

The Court also applied the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence arising from the petitioner’s unconditional part-payment and request for additional time.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge was substantially undermined by his conduct.

After the Collector fixed the premium at ₹1,512 per square metre, the petitioner deposited ₹15,00,000 and sought an extension to pay the balance, thereby accepting and partly implementing the determination before challenging it.

The Court found that the petitioner had not expressly reserved his right to contest the quantification, and therefore could not subsequently object to the premium on the basis of the earlier application dates.

Applying Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai, the Court held that the relevant valuation date was the date of sanction/decision, not the date of application.

The reliance on Patil Raghav Natha was rejected as distinguishable in view of the petitioner’s subsequent conduct and partial implementation of the order.

The comparison with Block No. 350 was also rejected because the petitioner had not raised that contention before the Collector when the premium was determined and could not introduce it for the first time at the later stage.

It held that the applicable rate was the rate prevailing on the date of the Collector’s sanction/decision, that the petitioner was disentitled from challenging the premium after partly accepting and implementing the determination, and that the alleged disparity with the adjoining block did not warrant interference.

The petitioner was, however, permitted to submit a written request to the competent authority for extension of time to deposit the remaining premium, which the authority was directed to decide in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing and communicating its decision in writing.