1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3482 OF 1997
PETITIONER: Rajaram Shivram Nirwan, aged 67 years,
occupation : business, resident of Bhandara,
Tahsil Bhandara, District : Bhandara
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra, through The
Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2] The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur
3] The Additional Collector, Bhandara
===============================================
Shri V.G.Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri P.D.Kothari, A.G.P. for respondents.
===============================================
CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J.
DATE: 23.7.2009
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this petition, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.
NAP-36/Pinglai -/95-96, an appeal under section 247 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
2] Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can
be briefly stated thus. The petitioner is resident of Bhandara, having
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:49:25 :::
2
land bearing Khasara No. 198/1 and 198/3 admeasuring 4 acres,
P.H.No.54, Mouja Village Pinglai and District : Bhandara. As the
petitioner wanted to start Brass Industries on that land. He moved
the office of the S.D.O. for grant of permission for non-agricultural
Use. The case was registered and the S.D.O. had passed certain
order. Accordingly the certificate to permit use of the land for non-
agricultural purpose was also issued. Later on the matter was
reopened on the query of the Audit Party as regards the non-
agricultural assessment of this land. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Bhandara then in Revenue Case No. 6/NAP-36/87-88 of Pinglai
passed order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.38,516/- as
calculated in the said order. The order was then challenged by the
petitioner before the Additional Collector, Bhandara. The Additional
Collector found that the appeal was barred by limitation and as such
he rejected the appeal.
3] The matter was then taken up by the petitioner before the
Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Additional Commissioner,
considered the matter on merits and passed the impugned order on
28.8.1997.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:49:25 :::
3
4] The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment
reported in 2004(1) Mh.l.J. 951 – Shobha wd/o Prakash Deshmukh
& others ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, contended that once the non
agricultural assessment was fixed, it could not be revised for 30 years
in view of the provision of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and as such
initial order of S.D.O. Bhandara, through which these appeals arose
was incorrect. According to learned counsel, the appeal should have
been decided by the Additional Collector on merits. But he has
wrongly applied the law of limitation to reject this appeal. His further
contention is that the Additional Commissioner, should not have
decided the matter on merits as the merits of the matter were not
considered by the Additional Collector , Bhandara. Therefore,
according to him, at the most the matter could have been remanded
by the learned Additional Commissioner, instead of deciding the
same on merit.
5] Learned A.G.P. has however, supported the order of the
learned Additional Commissioner. According to him, there was no
revision of non agricultural assessment. Only because of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:49:25 :::
4
Auditor’s query some mistakes were directed to be rectified.
according to him, Additional Commissioner has rightly considered
the matter on merits instead of remanding the same and his order is
final.
6] I have given anxious consideration to the above submissions of
the parties.
7]
It appears from the order passed by the S.D.O. , Bhandara that
the matter was reopened because of the query raised by the Audit
Party. Some mistakes were noticed and therefore, the matter was
rejected. On perusal of his order, it clearly appears that it was not a
case of revision of the assessment, but it was a case of correction in
the levy of the assessment. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the non agricultural assessment can not
be revised for 30 years, does not hold water.
8] Turning to the submission that the Additional Commissioner
should have remanded the matter back for fresh consideration to the
Additional Collector, I am inclined to accept this submission,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:49:25 :::
5
inasmuch as the Additional Commissioner seems to have considered
all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in
the appeal.
9] The possible contention to be raised by the petitioner are
considered by him and rightly.
10] In these circumstances, I do not find that there is any case
made out for interference with the impugned order in the extra-
ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India. As such the petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE
smp.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:49:25 :::