Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
For the first time the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1954, introduced
the necessity of Tenure holders seeking such permission and that
provision is now embodied in Sections 59 and 172 of the M. P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959. According to the finding of the Sub-
Divisional Officer, an area of 15,61,532 square feet had been
diverted to non-agricultural purposes prior to 1-10-1950. Thus,
the total diverted area is 18,29,520 square feet, out of the lands
held by the petitioner and its predecessor. The petitioner's
predecessor had been assessed to land revenue of Rs. 16.19 ps. in
respect of 42 acres of land held by it. The lands were transferred
by the Associated Cement Company. Limited to the present
petitioner sometime in the year 1935. However, in spite of the
diversion the lands have throughout been assessed to land
revenue on the basis that they continued to be lands used for
agricultural purposes.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the diversion
having taken place at the time when the mining operations had
started, it could not be asserted on behalf of the State that there
was any fresh diversion when the petitioner diverted the lands to
residential or industrial purposes. It was pointed out that Section
59 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, contemplates re-
assessment on the first diversion only and not on any subsequent
diversion that may be made from one non-agricultural to another
non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the contention is that the
present re-assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and
not warranted by the provisions of the M. P. Land Revenue Code,
1959.
5. So far as this argument of the learned counsel is concerned, we
may observe that it is based on a mis-apprehension of the
implication of grant of a quarrying lease to the petitioner or its
predecessor. In fact the quarrying lease not being inconsistent
with agricultural purposes, there was no diversion by the starting
of quarrying operations. That was also the view taken by the
different revenue Courts. We are in agreement with that view. It
was for that reason that throughout the lands continued to be
recorded as lands used for agricultural purposes. It is futile to
contend that there was any diversion by the starting of quarrying
operations. It is pertinent to note that the quarrying operations
might be carried on in some portion of the land and rest of the
land would still continue to be used for an agricultural purpose.
Therefore, no diversion can be said to have taken place merely
because of grant of a quarrying lease. It is clear that the diversion
took place partly before 1-10-1950 and partly after 1-10-1955,
when the petitioner constructed residential quarters and other
constructions for industrial purposes. Thus, in our opinion, the
present proceedings for re-assessment of land revenue in respect
of the diverted lands were perfectly tenable and the same cannot
be said to be without jurisdiction. As per the finding of the Sub-
Divisional Officer, the petitioner never intimated to the revenue
authorities about such diversion and for the first time, an
application under Section 59 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
1959, was made by the petitioner sometime in the year 1963
much after the re-assessment proceedings had been initiated by
the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1959.
(c) for purposes other than those specified in items (a), (b) or (d);
(2) Where land assessed for use for any one purpose is diverted
to any other purpose, the land revenue payable upon such land
shall, notwithstanding that the term for which the assessment
may have been fixed has not expired, be liable to be altered and
assessed in accordance with the purpose to which it has been
diverted.
(3) Where the land held free from the payment of land revenue
on condition of being used for any purpose is diverted to any
other purpose it shall become liable to the payment of land
revenue and assessed in accordance with the purpose to which it
has been diverted.
(4) The assessment made under Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be
in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in
this behalf and such rules shall be in accordance with the
principles contained in Chapter VII or VIII, as the case may be.
(5) Where land for use for any one purpose is diverted to any
other purpose, and land revenue is assessed thereon under the
provisions of this section, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall also
have power to impose a premium on the diversion in accordance
with rules made under this Code:
7. The purposes for which the land can be used are agriculture,
residential and other general purposes not covered by any of the
sub-clauses and lastly for industrial or commercial purposes.
This is not a case of diversion of land from one non-agricultural
purpose to another non-agricultural purpose, but purely a case of
diversion of land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural
purposes. Similarly, it is also pertinent to note that a
Notification, dated 7-8-1964, published in the M. P. Government
Gazette, dated 21-8-1964 had been issued including the areas
covered by these lands within the limits of Kymore town. In view
of this Notification, Sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Code will
be attracted; with the result that lands being situated in an urban
area will have to be re-assessed according to the provisions of
Chapter VIII of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. For this
reason also reassessment of land revenue would be necessary. It
is also pertinent to note the provisions of Sub-section (6) of
Section 59 of the Code, according to which the immunity of the
petitioner from payment of premium was taken away, and it was
for that reason that the petitioner was granted a rebate of land
revenue for one year.