Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate, Assam. The petitioner is a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They own Tea Estates (T.E.) in Assam and challenge the legality of the Government Notification dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-A), whereby, the rate of land revenue for tea lands in Barak Valley was enhanced to Rs. 16/- from Rs. 9/- per Bigha. For the Tea Estates in Assam Valley, increase is from Rs. 12 to Rs. 22 per Bigha. The classification of the tea estate lands on which the tea factory is located is changed to Industrial Site and such re-classification is also challenged by the petitioner. The 3rd challenge is to the levy of fine @ Rs. 200/- per annum for the Government land encroached by the T.E. The imposition of the enhanced land revenue with retrospective effect from 1.7.2003 through the impugned notification of 12.8.2008 is also under challenge in this proceeding.

2. The petitioner contends that the imposition of higher rate of revenue under Section 11A of the Assam Land Revenue Re-Assessment Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Re-Assessment Act) is unjustified since the condition precedent for enhancing the rate of revenue is not satisfied in the instant case. To be specific, the impugned decision is not relatable to Government's opinion based on relevant materials and accordingly the increase in the rate of land revenue is contended to be unjustified.

For ready reference Section 11A is quoted below:

"11.A. Revision of rates of revenue by the State Government - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11 or in any other law for the time being in force the State Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so, by notification, assess a higher rate of revenue in all classes of lands not exceeding 30 times of the existing rate of revenue in case of tea land and tea groups and 20 times of existing rate of revenue in case of other lands in rural areas."

2.1 Challenging the categorization of the T.E. factory area as Industrial Site under Section 11A, the petitioner argues that without declaration of a specified area is Industrial Site under Section 3A of the Re-Assessment Act, the re-classification of any part of T.E. land as Industrial Site is contrary to law. The petitioner contends that when the pre-conditions under Section 3A of the Re-Assessment Act for declaration of a specified area as Industrial Site is not satisfied, the re-classification of the tea factory area within the tea estates for assessment of higher revenue is contrary to due process.

Since Section 3 A is relevant the same is extracted:

"3A. Declaration of any specified area as trade site, commercial site, industrial site or residential site. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, if it is of the opinion on that a particular area as assumed importance for trade, commerce, industry or residential use, declare such area as trade site, commercial site, industrial site or residential site, as the case may be, for the purpose of assessment of land revenue at enhanced rates as may be applicable."

2.2 Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, the learned Counsel refers to definition of "Tea Lands" under Section 2(xiii) of the Re-Assessment Act to submit that land used for purpose ancillary to cultivation of tea should also be considered as "Tea Lands" and to explain ancillary purpose for special cultivation, the Counsel refers to the Explanation given in Section 4(2) of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).

The explanation to Section 4(2) of the Ceiling Act being relevant is extracted as under:

"Section 4(2)

.................

Explanation - Purposes ancillary to special cultivation shall mean the following:

(i) land used for factory buildings,

(ii) land used for staff building including labour line,

(ii