Bombay High Court
Hargovind Gangabhishan Bajaj vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 2009
Author: J. H. Bhatia
Bench: J. H. Bhatia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2001
Hargovind Gangabhishan Bajaj,
aged Major, R/o C/o Bajaj Steel
Industries, Imamwada Road,
Nagpur.
ig PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Revenue
and Forests Department,
Mantralaya Bombay-32.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Additional Collector (Appeals),
Nagpur, District Nagpur.
4. Sub Divisional Officer,
Nagpur District Nagpur.
5. Additional Tahsildar,
Nagpur. District Nagpur. RESPONDENTS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 :::
2
Shri. A. C. Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri. A. D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for State-
respondents.
CORAM: J. H. BHATIA J.
Date: 2nd FEBRUARY 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Admitted facts are that:
The petitioner is holder of land bearing Survey No. 405/2 admeasuring 1.87 hectare situated at Nagpur. Admittedly since prior to 01.10.1955 use of this land was converted from agricultural to non agricultural and land revenue was assessed to Rs. 114/- per year prior to 1955. There is no dispute that as per the clarification given by the Government of Maharashtra by Revenue And Forest Department letter No. NAA/4978/40776-7/S-III (i) dated Nil February 1979, all conversions or change to non agricultural use before 1955 is to be treated as authorised and the land revenue enhanced during the conversion is to be treated as a revision under Section 116 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Admittedly on the proposal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 3 made by Tahsildar in Revenue Case No. 1002/NAP-36/78-79, S. D. O. Nagpur approved the revision of land revenue from Rs. 114/- to Rs.
684/- from 1978-79. That order appears to have been passed on
02.06.1984 and accordingly a bill was submitted on 16.08.1984 for recovery of land revenue from 1978-79 to 1983-84 and that bill was duly paid.
2. The dispute is about second revision. In Revenue Case No. 1068/NAP-36/1989-90 Tahsildar held that earlier revision was for the year 1978-79 and the fresh revision is to be made with effect from 01.08.1979 in view of the Government Resolution No. NAA/498/24253 Government LQ dated 23.07.1981. In view of the provisions of Section 116(2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 he revised the non agricultural assessment with effect from 01.08.1979 from Rs. 684/- to Rs. 4104/- being six times the earlier non agricultural assessment. On the basis of that order dated 28.03.1990, notice was issued claiming arrears of non agricultural assessment since 1965 to 1978-79 and from 1979-80 onwards. The order dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 4 28.03.1990 was challenged in Revenue Appeal No. 6/NAP-36/1990-91 before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order on 14.01.1991. He found that there were certain mistakes in the order dated 28.03.1990 that is second revision order passed by the Tahsildar as well as in the bill issued on the basis of that order. Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the first assessment dated 02.06.1984 was for for the year 1978-79 and as per the above referred Government Resolution a fresh assessment with effect from 01.08.1979 was due and accordingly the assessment was correctly made. He held that the second assessment would be valid for the guarantee period of 10 years, that is upto 1989-90. He also found that there were no arrears prior to 1978-79. He made correction and directed to issue fresh demand notice. The order passed by the Collector was challenged before the Commissioner in revenue appeal. Appeal was dismissed and even the revision was dismissed by the Government. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 5 assessment was made on 02.06.1984 and as that assessment was made after 1979 it could not be further revised during the guarantee period of 12 years as the assessment was made from 1978-79 by the said order dated 02.06.1984. It would be effective till 1990-91 and only after that it would be subject to revision. He contends that the order passed by the Tahsildar on 28.03.1990 is not correct and the Additional Collector also committed an error in upholding that order.
He further contended that the Additional Collector committed error in directing that the guarantee period would be only 10 years and not 12 years. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the State defended the said orders. According to him in view of the Government Resolution of 1981 fresh revision was due with effect from 01.08.1979 and as per the provisions of Sub Section 2(A) of Section 113 also the revision of non agricultural assessment would be due from 1st of August 1979 in every case where the assessment was made for the period prior to that date. According to him it is irrelevant whether that order of revision for the period prior to 1979 was made prior to 1979 or in 1984.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 63. On perusal of the relevant provisions of the law and admitted factual position it may be noted that under Section 113 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the Collector has to fix the non agricultural assessment. As per the provisions of Section 116 as amended in 1979, in case of revision in respect of the non agricultural use for the residential buildings the revised assessment shall not exceed two times the land revenue payable immediately before the revision and shall not exceed six times before the revision if the land is used for any other non agricultural purpose. In the present case land was being used for the industrial purpose and therefore the land revenue could be increased to six times. It may be noted that Section 116 has been deleted by the Maharashtra Act 9 of 2002. However, that provision is relevant for the purpose of decision of the present matter. As the revenue was fixed at Rs. 114/- prior to 1955 and therefore for the first time it was decided to be revised with effect from 1978-1979 and accordingly by the order dated 02.06.1984 it was revised to Rs. 684/- being the six times of the earlier assessment. It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 7 was effective from 1978-79. Therefore it should be presume that this revision had taken place from 01.04.1978 on wards. However, in 1979 by making an amendment in Land Revenue Code, Sub Section 2 and 2(A) were incorporated in Section 113. Sub Sections 2 and 2(A) read as follows:
Section 113:(2)
The standard rate of non-
agricultural assessment shall remain in force for a period of ten years hereinafter referred to as "the guaranteed period" and shall then be liable to be revised in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that, the duration of the first such guaranteed period shall be twelve years commencing on the 1st day of August 1979.
"2(A) Where the standard rate of non-agricultural assessment in any block in any urban area has been fixed or revised before the 1st day of August, 1979, such standard rate shall be deemed to be due for revision at any time on and after that date."
From this it is clear that if the revision had taken place prior to 1st ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 8 August 1979 it would be further revisable with effect from 1 st August, 1979 or any time thereafter. In the present case though the first order was passed on 02.06.1984 the revision has taken place from 1978 and therefore in view of the provisions of Sub Section 2(A) further revision was due from 1st August, 1979. Tahsildar in his order dated 28.03.1990 and Additional Collector in his impugned order referred to a Government Resolution of 23.07.1981. That Government Resolution appears to be based on the provisions of Sub-section 2(A) and in view of this it is difficult to find any fault with the further revision with effect from 01.08.1979. It may be noted that provisions of Section 2(A) are not challenged in the present Writ Petition. Even though revision had earlier taken place with effect from 01.04.1978, still as per provisions of Sub-section 2(A) it was due for fresh revision with effect from 01.08.1979. To that extent the order passed by the Tahsildar on 28.04.1990 does not appear to be wrong.
4. Tahsildar had committed an error in issuing the bill showing the arrears of land revenue for the period from 1965-66 on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 9 the assessment made earlier. However, that mistake was corrected by the Additional Collector in the appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary to enter into that question. Certain typographical mistakes are to be found in the order of the Collector also. It is not necessary to enter into the question of those typographical mistakes as long as they do not affect the result and the final order.
5.
In view of the language of the sub-section 2 it appears that standard rate for the non agricultural assessment was to be for the guarantee period of 10 years. However, at least the first such guarantee period was to be 12 years beginning from 01.08.1979. It may be noted that sub section 2 was further amended in 1999 and the guarantee period was reduced from 10 years to 5 years. However the first guarantee period was to continue for 12 years beginning from 1st August 1979 and by Amendment Act of 1993. Sub section 2A was further amended and it reads as follows:
Sub-section 2(A) of Section 113 reads as follows:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 10
"Section 113:
Sub-section 2(A): Where the standard rate of non-agricultural assessment in any block in any urban area has been fixed or revised before the 1st day of August, 1979 such standard rate shall be deemed to be due for revision at any time on and after the 1st day of August 1979 and then such standard rate if so revised shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of August 1979 on which date the first guaranteed period commenced and would remain in force after the 31st July 1991 and would then be subject to further revision under sub-section 2(B), from time to time."
6. It was made clear by this that this guarantee period would expire on 31.07.1991. In view of this, first guarantee period was of 12 years and as such the assessment made with effect from 1st August 1979 would be in force till 31st July 1991 and it would be subject to revision thereafter. In the impugned order the Additional Collector observed that the revised assessment would be effective from 1st August 1979 for a period of 10 years that is upto 1989-90. This does not appear to be correct because it was the first assessment made under Section 113 and therefore the guarantee period would be upto ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 11 31st July 1991.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that within a span of 15 months the land revenue has been increased by six times again with effect from 1st August 1979. On perusal of the provisions of Section 116, as it was in force at that time, it is clear that revision of assessment could be upto six times. Of course from the language it appears that discretion was given to the revenue authorities in this respect. However, I do not see any reason to interfere as long as that discretion was used within the maximum limit. As there is nothing to show that the revised assessment is more than the maximum prescribed by the law, this Court cannot interfere.
8. Subject to the clarification about the first guarantee period which would be in force upto 31st July 1991, I find no substance in the present revision.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed except to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 ::: 12 the extent of clarification in respect of guarantee period.
Rule discharged.
JUDGE svk ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:14 :::