SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Bom) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Pendse M.L. Vyas N.D., JJ.
State of Maharashtra others .... Appellants.
Versus
Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. another.... Respondents.
Appeal No. 247 of 1990 in Writ Petition No. 2526 of 1982, decided on 7/8-7-1992.
Advocates appeared :
C.J. Sawant with Behram Shroff, for appellants.
E.P. Bharucha with Miss R. Millwala, for respondents.

The Collector is not required to serve notices on individual land holders before dividing the urban area into blocks under section 111 of the Code and permit the land holders to raise objections, as the division of urban areas into blocks is a function carried out by the Collector as part of the legislative exercise and the principles of natural justice do not come into play.

Headnote:

NON-AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT - URBAN AREAS - BLOCKS - FORMATION - NOTICE TO LAND HOLDERS - REVISED ASSESSMENT - EFFECTIVE DATE - MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE, 1966, SECTIONS 111, 113, 114, 116 - MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE (CONVERSION OF USE OF LAND AND NON-AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT) RULES, 1969, RULE 18 - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION - SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Maharashtra challenged the judgment of the Single Judge, who set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and directed the Government to re-determine the blocks in which the lands covered by the respondent Company are situated and to refix the standard rates of non-agricultural assessment thereof. The Single Judge also directed that the exercise should be carried out by strictly abiding to the requirements of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Conversion Rules and the Government shall afford to the Company the opportunity of raising objections against the proposed blocks and standard rates of the non-agricultural assessment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Collector cannot divide urban areas into blocks in accordance with section 111 of the Code without giving prior intimation to each of the land holders and hearing their objections. The Court also held that the revised non-agricultural assessment is payable only from the date of Notification and not from August 1, 1979.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector is required to serve notices on individual land holders before dividing the urban area into blocks under section 111 of the Code and permit the land holders to raise objections? 2. Whether the revised non-agricultural assessment is payable from August 1, 1979 or from the date of Notification?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Collector is not required to serve notices on individual land holders before dividing the urban area into blocks under section 111 of the Code and permit the land holders to raise objections. The Court reasoned that the division of urban areas into blocks is a function carried out by the Collector as part of the legislative exercise and that the principles of natural justice do not come into play. The Court also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Cynamide India Ltd. and others and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others to support its conclusion. 2. The Court held that the revised non-agricultural assessment is payable only from the date of Notification and not from August 1, 1979. The Court reasoned that sub-section (2-A) of section 113 of the Code confers enabling power to revise the assessment with effect from August 1, 1979 even though the guaranteed period has not expired, but there is no compulsion to undertake that exercise. The Court also held that sub-section (2-B) of section 113 covers an entirely different situation, where the standard rate of the assessment is fixed after August 1, 1979, and that the revised rates after the expiry of the guaranteed period will be payable right from the date of expiry of guaranteed period irrespective of the fact as to when the revision was completed and Notification issued.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and set aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Collector must serve notices on individual land holders before dividing the urban area into blocks under section 111 of the Code and permit the land holders to raise objections.

JUDGMENT - PENDSE M.L., J.:---This is an appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra to challenge judgment dated June 29, 1989 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2526 of 1982. By the impugned order, the learned Judge set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on October 7, 1982 and directed the Government to re-determine the blocks in which the lands covered by the respondent Company are situated and to refix the standard rates of non-agricultural assessment thereof. The learned Judge further directed that the exercise should be carried out by strictly abiding to the requirements of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Conversion Rules and the Government shall afford to the Company the opportunity of raising objections against the proposed blocks and standard rates of the non-agricultural assessment. The learned Judge also gave certain other directions.

The Government is aggrieved by two directions of the learned Judge. The first is that while forming blocks under section 111 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, it is incumbent upon the Collector to give notices to the individual land owners to raise objections against the proposed demarcation of blocks to satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. The second ground on which the decision of the learned Single Judge is challenged is that finding that the revised assessment shall be effective only from July 27, 1981 and not from August 1, 1979. To appreciate the grievance of the State Government, it is necessary to set out few facts.

2. The respondent No. 1 is a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act and owns various lands situated at village Pahadi, Goregaon, Bombay. The lands held by the Company are liable to payment of non-agricultural assessment under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Chapter VII of the Code deals with assessments and settlement of land revenue of lands used for non-agricultural purposes and on March 31, 1979, sections 113, 114 and 116 forming part of Chapter VII were amended. Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non-Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, were notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 328 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. On July 27, 1981, the State Government published in the Government Gazette Notification setting out standard rates of non-agricultural assessment per square metre applicable to non-agricultural lands in each of the blocks which were demarcated under section 113 of the Code. The Notification, inter alia, recites that the standard rates of the non-agricultural assessment so fixed will come into force with effect from August 1, 1979 and would remain in operation for a period of 12 years therefrom.

On December 15, 1981, the Company was served with three orders, each dealing with different groups of lands and fixing the non-agricultural assessment payable in respect thereof in pursuance of the rate fixed under the Notification. The Company preferred appeals against the orders before the Deputy Collector (Appeals), Bombay, but by order dated October 7, 1982 the appeals were dismissed. The Company, thereupon, preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the revision of non-agricultural assessment and for direction that it should be payable from August 1, 1979.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, held that the Collector was required to maintain elaborate data and make use of it for the purpose of defending the lands into blocks on the basis of the market value of the lands, due regard being had to the situation of the lands. The learned Judge held that the Collector was also required to take into consideration the non-agricultural purpose for which the lands were used and the advantages and disadvantages attaching thereto. From the material produced before the learned Judge, it was noticed that the Collector had failed to maintain the data required unde














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top