Allowed

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sillod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/1929/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that road and public amenities need exclusion from non-agricultural assessment under Section 117 of the Land Revenue Code read with Rule 22(2). The writ petition was allowed, impugned notices were quashed, and the Tahsildar was directed to reassess charges within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices are quashed. Respondent-Tahsildar to reassess non-agricultural charges excluding roads/public amenities and issue revised notice within twelve weeks.

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sillod Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1929.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2014

¶5

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sillod, Tq. Sillod Through its I/c Secretary Vithal s/o Marotirao Kapse, age 58 years, occ. service as I/c Secretary, A.P.M.C. Sillod, r/o Kale Galli, Sillod Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Department of Revenue Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

The Collector, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Sillod Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. B. N. Patil, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the State. =====

¶11

CORAM : R. M. BORDE &

¶12

A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2014.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶14

Heard.

¶15

wp1929.14

¶16

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶18

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶19

Petitioner is challenging notices issued by the Tahsildar in respect of payment of non-agricultural charges. Petitioner contends that regular nonagricultural charges as assessed by respondent-authorities have been deposited, however, additional claim made by Tahsildar in impugned notices is not sustainable in view of provisions of section 117 of the Land Revenue

¶20

Code r/w Rule 22(2) of the Rules. Rule 22(2) reads thus :

¶21

(2) Lands used for hospitals, hostels playgrounds, parks and garden, office premises of local authorities and gymnasiums or for roads, path and lanes set apart in layout, for the benefit of all citizens without distinction of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them shall be exempt from the payment of nonagricultural assessment so long as they are used for any of the said purposes and for no other purposes and yield no profit to private individuals or to any person.

¶22

According to petitioner the area occupied by road and other public

¶23

amenities need to be excluded while quantifying non-agricultural assessment. Petitioner places reliance on judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12/2004 decided on 16.02.2005.

¶24

wp1929.14

¶25

¶26

On consideration of contentions raised by petitioner as well as on going through the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that objection raised by petitioner in respect of quantification of non-agricultural assessment deserves consideration. Respondent – Tahsildar needs to look into the objection raised by petitioner in view of section 117 of the Land Revenue Code r/w Rule 22(2) of the rules and re-assess non-agricultural charges and issue revised demand notice.

¶27

Petitioner has already tendered representation to the Tahsildar on 18.12.2003 however, it has not been looked into by the Tahsildar.

¶28

In view of reasons stated above, petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Notices issued by the Tahsildar calling upon petitioner-institution to deposit non-agricultural charges are quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 3 is directed to decide objection raised by petitioner in respect of computation of non-agricultural assessment in view of Rule 22 of the Rules and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court referred to above. Respondent-Tahsildar is directed to do the needful as

¶29

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from today. With directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of. Rule

¶30

made absolute. No costs.

¶31

wp1929.14

¶32

¶33