Allowed

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. the Tehsildar Recovery Cell Office of the Dist Collector Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2011WP/210/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued under Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Court held that the statute allows recovery only of land revenue arrears, not the claimed amount, and set aside the notice.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice dated 4.1.2005 was set aside and the rule made absolute.

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs the Tehsildar Recovery Cell… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr １ WP210-05

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 2005

¶5

The Indian Hume Pipe Co.Ltd....Petitioner
vs.
1.The Tehsildar, Recovery Cell.
And others....Respondents

¶6

Mr.S.Bharucha i/b. Ms.Jeenal Lakhabhai, for
petitioner.

¶7

Mr.J.S.Saluja, for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶9

DATED: 20th October,2011.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1.By this petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
challenges the undated notice which is received
on 4.1.2005 by the petitioner, demanding from the

¶12

pvr ２ WP210-05

¶13

petitioner an amount of Rs.1,26,74,160/-. The
notice has been issued by Respondent no.1 under
the provisions of Section 267 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code. Perusal of the provisions of
Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

¶14

shows that under that provision only arrears of
land revenue can be demanded. The learned Counsel

¶15

appearing for petitioner submits that the amount
demanded by the notice does not represent the
arrears of land revenue. The learned Counsel
submits that that amount tallies with the amount
that is claimed as due by Respondent no.2 in the
arbitrationproceedingswhichultimately

¶16

culminated into an Award in favour of the
petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that not
only that the amount which is claimed in the

¶17

demand notice is not due from the petitioner to
the State Government as arrears of land revenue
but that amount is also not due to the respondent
no.2-State of Madhya Pradesh from the petitioner.

¶18

The claim of the State of Madhya Pradesh made in

¶19

pvr ３ WP210-05

¶20

the arbitration proceedings for recovery of that
amount from the petitioner has been considered by
the Arbitrator and ultimately the Arbitrator has
found that some amount is payable to the
petitioner by respondent no.2.

¶21

2.The learned Counsel appearing for

¶22

respondents informed us that that Award has been
challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh in the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion,
the question �whether that amount is claimed in
the arbitration proceedings by the State of
Madhya Pradesh, whether that claim has been

¶23

accepted or rejected by the Arbitrator�, is
totally irrelevant in the present petition. The
only question that falls for consideration in
this petition is �whether the aforesaid amount
can be demanded by respondent no.1 from the
petitioner under the provisions of Section 267 of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Under the

¶24

provisions of Section 267 of the Act, only

¶25

pvr ４ WP210-05

¶26

arrears of land revenue and sums which are
recoverable as arrears of land revenue can be
demanded. The case of the petitioner is that
this amount is not recoverable from the
petitioner as arrears of land revenue. This
statement has not been denied by the respondents
by filing any affidavit in reply. On the
contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for
respondents pointed out to us that the notice has

¶27

been issued by Respondent no.1 because he has
received a letter from the officer of respondent
no.2 to recover the amount. Though, the letter

¶28

was produced before us, it is not legible. In
any case, it does not appear that the amount
which is mentioned in the letter, even according
to the author of that letter, is recoverable as

¶29

arrears of land revenue.

¶30

3.In this view of the matter, therefore,
there is no option but to set aside the demand
notice. In the result, therefore, the petition

¶31

pvr ５ WP210-05

¶32

succeeds and is allowed. Rule in the petition is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No

¶33

order as to costs.

¶34

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶35

 (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. the Tehsildar Recovery Cell Office of the Dist Collector Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. the Tehsildar Recovery Cell Office of the Dist Collector Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velji Devji Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Cr Retail Malls (India) Limited Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

Krishna Maruti Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ros.

1.THE President/Chairman, Siddhivinayak Shikshan Prasarak and Anr. Vs 1.SHRI Dilip Sukhdeo Patil and Ors.

Sera Daniel Antony and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Alcobex Metals Ltd., Mumbai. Vs 1. Sai Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and 7 Others.