Bombay High Court
Shri Mavji Mulji Merchant, Through His ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 22 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(3)BOMCR220
JUDGMENT B.P. Saraf, J.
1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the non-agricultural assessment ('N.A. Assessment") made by the Additional Tahsildar, N.A. II, Andheri (W), Bombay in respect of land admeasuring 1608.1 sq.mtrs. comprised in TPS-II, Plot No. 27 CTS 184 of village Andheri, Taluka Andheri, District B.S.D. belonging to the petitioner which has been confirmed on appeal by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District, Old Custom House, Yard, Fort, Bombay and on Revision, under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay. The petitioner has challenged the assessment mainly on two grounds :
1. That the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, under which the assessment in question has been made, does not apply to the land in question in as much as the said land, according to the petitioner, falls within the "City of Bombay" to which the provisions of the Code are not applicable by virtue of section 1(2) thereof.
2. That, the official assessment made Rs. 25/- per 100 sq.mtrs. is not in accordance with the requirements of section 116 of the Code which restricts the power of the authority concerned while revising N.A. assessment to raise it to an amount not exceeding two times the land revenue payable immediately before the revision, if the land is used for residential buildings.
2. The admitted position is that the provisions of the Code under which the non-agricultural assessment has been made in the instant case is not applicable to the `City of Bombay'. Special provisions have been made for the land revenue in the `City of Bombay' in Chapter XIV of the Code. The land of the petitioner has been treated by all the authorities concerned as land falling outside the city of Bombay. The expression `City of Bombay' has not been defined in the Code. What falls for determination, therefore, is the true meaning of the expression `City of Bombay'. This expression has been defined in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. Clause (10) of section 3 thereof defines it as under :
"City of Bombay" shall mean the area within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court of Judicature immediately before the date on which the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay Higher Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945, came into force."
Evidently, by this definition the City of Bombay has been restricted to the area within the Local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court of Judicature "immediately before the date on which the Greater Bombay Laws and the Higher Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945, came into force". Thus, the expression "City of Bombay" has been confined only to the areas which fall within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court prior to extension of its jurisdiction in 1945. This definition, therefore, has to be read accordingly. On the face of the specific limitation to the area put by the definition itself, the question of giving an extended meaning to this expression by interpreting it in a manner so as to include what has come to be known in course of time as `City of Bombay' or areas which got included in the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court by amendments made from time to time can not arise.
3. It may be expedient in this connection to note that in Clause (21) of section 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the expression `Greater Bombay' has also been defined as below:
"Greater Bombay" shall mean the areas specified in Schedule A to the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) Act, 1945 :"
This definition was inserted in the Act by Bombay Act 17 of 1945. Thus, the Bombay General Clauses Act refers to two different expressions viz., `City of Bombay' and `Greater Bombay' and separately defines each one of them. The expression "Greater Bombay" apparently covers much wider areas than "City of Bombay", which has been confined to areas within the local limits of the oridinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court as it stood prior to 1945.
4. In the Land Revenue Code, as earlier indicated, what has been excluded specifically from the operation of the Code by virtue of section 1(2) of the Code is "City of Bombay". The provisions of the Code mentioned in that sub-section do not apply to "City of Bombay". In the absence of any definition in the Code, we have to read this expression `City of Bombay' in section 1(2) of the Code as defined in Clause (10) of section 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. So read, it is difficult to give any extended meaning to the expression or to read it as "Greater Bombay", which is a separate expression specifically defined in the General Clauses Act in contradistinction to `City of Bombay'.
5. There is no dispute in the instant case that if `City of Bombay' is given the same meaning as given in the General Clauses Act, the land of the petitioner will not fall in `City of Bombay'. That being so, I do not find any force in the first submission of the petitioner in regard to the applicability of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1966 to the land in question which is situated in village Andheri, which does not fall within the definition of `City of Bombay' as discussed above.
6. The next grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the rate at which the land has been assessed by the Tahsildar, which has also been upheld by all the authorities on appeal and revision. This grievance is based on the proviso of section 116 of the Code which reads as under:
"Provided that, when the non-agricultural assessment is revised, the revised assessment shall not exceed two times the land revenue payable immediately before the revision, if the land is used for purposes of residential buildings, and shall not exceed six times the land revenue payable immediately before the revision, if the land is used for any other non-agricultural purpose :"
7. The submission of the petitioner is that originally in 1966, the rate of revenue was fixed at Rs. 9/- per 100 sq.mtrs. It was revised to Rs. 18/- and again with effect from 1-8-1979 it was raised to Rs. 25/- per 100 sq.mtrs. According to the petitioner, this revision is not in accordance with the limits set out in the first proviso to section 116 of the Code because the site is being used for residential purpose. The maximum revision could have been to the extent of double the amount of revenue which was chargeable immediately before the revision. The Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in any event, the revenue could not have been revised at a rate higher than Rs. 18/- per 100 sq. mtrs.
8. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the grievance of the petitioner is not based on proper appreciation of section 116 of the Code and the facts of the case. The counsel pointed out that the rate fixed under section 116 remains in force only for the guaranteed period provided in sub-section (2) of section 113 and is subject to revision on the expiry of such period and the ceiling mentioned in the first proviso is always to be considered in the context of the revenue that was payable immediately before the revision. The counsel drew my attention to the fact that the rate of assessment for the period between 1966 to 1971 was Rs. 9/- per 100 sq. mtrs. The revision was due in 1971 and, accordingly, from that period it was revised to Rs. 18/- per 100 sq. mtrs. In 1978, the petitioner demolished the old structure and constructed new structure and, as such, became liable to revised assessment and in that view of the matter, the rate was fixed with effect from 1-8-1979 at Rs. 25/- per 100 sq. mtrs. as against Rs. 18/- which was the rate immediately before the revision. It was, therefore, submitted that considering the revision even from the point of view of the first proviso to section 116, the rate is within the limits set out therein.
9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the proviso to section 116 of the Code and the facts of the case which have been set out above. It is true that the rate fixed under section 116 remains in force only during a period termed as "guaranteed period" mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 113 which is the period of 12 years. After the expiry of that period, the rates are subject to revision with effect from the commencement of the next guaranteed period and the ceiling mentioned in the first proviso is applicable to such revision. In the instant case the first revision was from Rs. 9/- to Rs. 18/- which was within the ceiling and the second revision which was after about 9 years of first revision on account of demolition of the old structure and construction of new structure, was also very much within the ceiling set out in the proviso to section 116 of the Code.
10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the fixation of the rates of revenue which may justify any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The rule is discharged. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.