Bombay High Court

COSTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD , REP. MANJUNATH SRINIWAS PAI DUKLEversusTHE COLLECTOR SOUTH GOA DISTRICT

Disposal: Rule made absolute

Holding

The Court held that the conversion Sanad error can be rectified under Section 32(7) and Section 187 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, and therefore allowed the writ petition.

Summary

Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd. applied to the Collector under Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code for conversion of a 9,360 sq m plot from non‑agricultural to commercial use and paid conversion fees at the commercial rate. By mistake the conversion Sanad was issued for residential use. The petitioner sought rectification under Section 32(7) read with Section 187, but the Collector rejected the application, directing a fresh conversion request, and the Administrative Tribunal upheld that order. The High Court examined the statutory provisions and found that the error was clerical and did not affect the material part of the case, and that the commercial fees had already been recovered, so no loss to the State would occur. Accordingly, the Court held that the Sanad could be corrected under the Code and allowed the writ petition, disposing of the related civil application. The decision prevents the petitioner from being taxed twice for the same conversion.

Issues considered

Whether the Collector can rectify a conversion Sanad issued for residential purpose when the applicant intended commercial conversion and paid commercial fees.
Whether Section 32(7) and Section 187 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code empower correction of such an error.
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay additional conversion fees after rectification.
Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the rectification application.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 — s. 187, 188(1)(c), 32, 32(6)(iii)(b), 32(7)

Subjects

land conversion
conversion fee
rectification
administrative tribunal
writ jurisdiction
Section 32
Section 187
commercial vs residential use
double taxation
error correction

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1706
(1) wp-233-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2023
AND
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2237 OF 2026 (F)
M/s. Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company registered under
The Indian Companies Act, 1956
with its registered office at
Aquem, Goa,
Represented herein by its
Authorized representative
Shri Manjunath Sriniwas Pai Dukle
52 years of age,
Son of late Sriniwas Pai Dukle,
Resident of Flat No.T/11,
Sitaram Residency,
Aquem, Margao, Salcete Goa,
(Authorized vide Board Resolution
Dated 24/12/2020) ..Petitioner

Versus

The Collector,
South Goa District,
Office of the Collector, South Goa,
Room No.449, 4th Floor, Matanhy Saldhana,
Administrative Complex,
Margoa-Goa. ..Respondent
…
Mr. G. K. Sardessai with Ms. Smrati Bengera, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

RESERVED ON :19th AUGUST, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON :25th AUGUST, 2026.

JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,

matter is heard finally at admission stage.
(2) wp-233-2023.odt

2. The petitioner impugns order dated 06.01.2023 passed by

Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panji-Goa in Land Revenue Appeal

No.1/2021 as well as order bearing No.COL/SG/CONV/61/2010/14665

dated 24.12.2020 passed by Collector, South Goa District, thereby

declining to entertain application dated 20.10.2020 filed by petitioner

seeking rectification/correction of conversion Sanad bearing

no.COL/SG/CONV/61/2010/6277 dated 29.06.2011.

3. The petitioner was willing to carry out development in plot

admeasuring 9360.00 sq. meters of property bearing Chalta No.4 of P.T.

Sheet No.226 of Margaon City. The said plot was in C-2 Zone having

150 FAR under ‘A’ class municipalities. The petitioner filed an

application dated 12.10.2010 before Collector, South Goa under Section

32 of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (hereafter

referred to as ‘Code’) seeking conversion of plot from non-agriculture

to commercial/residential use. The respondent favourably processed

petitioner’s application for conversion and directed petitioner to pay

fees @ Rs.120/- per sq. meter under Section 32(6)(iii)(b) of the Code.

The petitioner has accordingly deposited conversion fee as

Rs.11,23,200/-. However, inadvertently Sanad is issued for residential

purposes.

4. The petitioner could not note aforesaid error immediately after

grant of permission. However, when petitioner was desirous of
(3) wp-233-2023.odt

commencing development activities realized error crept into conversion

Sanad dated 29.06.2011 and made rectification application dated

20.10.2020 invoking Section 32(7) r/w Section 187 of the Code, which

came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2020 observing that

petitioner’s application was for conversion for residential purpose.

Accordingly, application was processed, hence, rectification/correction

cannot be entertained under the Code. The petitioner was further

directed to apply afresh for conversion of Sanad for commercial

purpose.

5. Aggrieved petitioner filed Land Revenue Appeal No.1/2021

under Section 188(1)(c) of the Code before Administrative Tribunal,

which came to be dismissed upholding order dated 24.12.2020 passed

by Collector, South Goa. Hence, this Writ Petition.

6. Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner

would submit that petitioner’s application dated 12.10.2010 was

processed for commercial/residential development, as plot is located in

commercial zone under ‘A’ class municipalities. Accordingly,

prescribed fees under Section 32(6) of the Code was charged @

Rs.120/- per sq. meter as applicable to commercial user in C-2-150

FAR. However, taking disadvantage of inadvertent mistake in

application, whereby petitioner stated purpose of conversion for

residential use, his application for rectification is rejected by giving
(4) wp-233-2023.odt

technical interpretation to provisions of the Code. The respondent was

well aware about petitioner’s intention to seek conversion for

commercial use and location of plot in commercial area and recovered

fees as applicable for conversion of non-agriculture land for commercial

user.

7. Per contra, Mr. Deep Shirodkar, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent would submit that petitioner’s application was specifically

made seeking conversion for residential purpose. Accordingly, NOC

from various departments was called and Sanad for residential purpose

was issued. Section 32(7) or Section 187 of the Code cannot be invoked

in facts of case, as there is no error in issuance of Sanad. He would

justify impugned orders and urge this Court to not to invoke supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, which is limited

to see that inferior Court or Tribunal functions within limits of its

authority. In support of his contentions, he relies upon observations of

Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and

Others1.

8. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that petitioner made

application under Section 32 of the Code seeking permission for

conversion of non-agriculture land for residential use only.

Accordingly, respondent issued Sanad dated 29.06.2011. The Sanad
1 (1983) 4 SCC 566.
(5) wp-233-2023.odt

shows that conversion is sanctioned for residential purpose with

permissible F.A.R 150%, as land is located in commercial zone as per

report of Town Planner. The petitioner was charged conversion fees of

Rs.11,23,200/-. Undisputedly, conversion fees was quantified at the rate

fixed for change of use from non-agriculture to commercial purpose.

9. No explanation is coming forward from respondent as to why

conversion fees was charged for commercial use, if petitioner’s

application was for residential use. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s

property is located in commercial zone having F.A.R. 150% as per

report of Town Planner. There is huge difference in conversion fees for

commercial purpose as compare to residential purpose. In this

backdrop, there is no difficulty in accepting petitioner’s contention that

his application was processed for conversion of land to commercial use.

10. The petitioner’s application for rectification was made in year

2020, when petitioner was intending to commence development. The

possibility that petitioner realized error in Sanad at that time cannot be

rejected in aforesaid factual backdrop. The respondent/State has already

received conversion charges as applicable in year 2011 for commercial

use, therefore, there would be no loss to State if petitioner’s prayer for

rectification/correction of Sanad is considered.

11. Section 187 of the Code empowers Revenue Officer to correct

error or omission in any order passed in case or proceeding, either on
(6) wp-233-2023.odt

his motion or on application of party, if such error or omission does not

affect material part of case or proceeding. Similarly, sub-clause (7) of

Section 32 empowers Collector to correct any clerical or arithmetical

error in Sanad arising from any accidental slip or omission.

12. Apparently, petitioner’s application was processed for conversion

of land to commercial use. The respondents have charged treating

petitioner’s application for commercial/industrial housing. The

petitioner’s property is also situated in commercial zone, naturally there

was no reason for petitioner to seek conversion for residential use and

pay conversion charges for commercial/industrial use. This Court finds

that if State has recovered conversion charges as per commercial rate as

applicable at relevant time and issued Sanad for residential use, may be

on account of inadvertent error in application, such error can definitely

be rectified.

13. At this stage Mr. Shirodkar, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent submits that petitioner is already advised to file fresh

application seeking conversion from residential to commercial use. The

Tribunal has observed that excess fees deposited by petitioner while

obtaining Sanad for residential use can be appropriated. This Court

finds that if petitioner is charged for conversion as per present rates, he

will have to deposit excessive and exorbitant conversion fees. The

person cannot be taxed twice for one and the same purpose. The State
(7) wp-233-2023.odt

cannot be permitted to recover double charges from citizen and make

unjust enrichment. Pertinently, Apex Court in case of Union of India

and Anr. Vs. Mahajan Industries Ltd. And Anr.2 giving reference to

decision of Delhi High Court in case of Ansal & Saigal Properties (P)

Ltd. & Ors. Vs. L&D.O. & Ors.3 observed that crucial date for

calculating conversion charges has to be date of receipt of application

for conversion. In present case, petitioner’s application with conversion

charges for commercial use was filed in year 2011. As such, charges

have been already recovered. The respondent as well as Tribunal

adopted hyper-technical and unreasonable approach while declining to

entertain petitioners’ application, so also failed to exercise jurisdiction

vested with them in judicious manner. In this backdrop, this is a fit case

to entertain and allow Writ Petition in exercise of Writ jurisdiction

under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

14. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A).

15. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, present Civil Application

also stands disposed of.

16. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026

2 2005 Supreme (SC) 326.
3 (1998) 74 DLT 152.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…