Harshadbhai K.Patel vs. Official Liquidator Of Hexone Pharmaceuticals LTD.

Facts

The applicant, Harshadbhai K. Patel, sought directions from the Gujarat High Court to convert land bearing Survey Nos. 63+66, admeasuring 15160 sq.mtrs at Dharampur, District Valsad, into non-agricultural land. This was to facilitate the sale of the land, which had been confirmed in his favour by the Court on 03.07.2015. The applicant also sought to recall an order dated 29.06.1999 by the District Collector, Valsad, which had cancelled the non-agricultural permission. The Official Liquidator, representing the company in liquidation, was directed by the Court to approach the Collector. The Official Liquidator filed an online application for conversion, incurring costs including GST, and the land was subsequently declared non-agricultural by an order dated 31.03.2022.

Held

The Court noted that the prayers sought by the applicant, specifically the conversion of the land to non-agricultural status, had been achieved by the order dated 31.03.2022. This order, issued by the office of the District Collector, Valsad, declared the land as non-agricultural. Consequently, the Court found that no further orders were required at that stage concerning the conversion of the land. The Court also ratified the costs incurred by the Official Liquidator for the transfer of land, including the amount of Rs.1,39,389/- which included GST. As the primary relief of converting the land to non-agricultural status was granted, the subsequent prayer for approval of the sale transaction became moot. Therefore, the application was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the conversion of the land bearing Survey Nos. 63+66 to non-agricultural status, recalling the order dated 29.06.1999 passed by the District Collector, Valsad, as prayed by the applicant under relief (A)? Petitioner's contention: The applicant sought the conversion of the land to non-agricultural status and the recall of the previous order cancelling such permission, to enable the sale of the property. The applicant relied on the Court's previous order confirming the sale in his favour. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or the District Collector regarding this issue. However, the process involved the Collector's office issuing communications regarding online applications and payments, including GST, for the conversion. 2. Whether the Court should direct the District Collector to approve the sale transaction of the land in favour of the applicant, as prayed under relief (B)? Petitioner's contention: The applicant sought approval for the sale transaction that had taken place pursuant to the Court's earlier order. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or the District Collector regarding this issue. The Court's subsequent order indicates that the prayers related to the sale approval became moot due to the land being declared non-agricultural.