1 SA 788.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State Mr. P.F.Patni, Advocate for respondent. ........................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The present respondent had filed Suit challenging the notice issued under the provisions of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] revising the non assessment charges. Both the Courts decreed the Suit. The State has challenged the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State contends that in view of the provisions 2 SA 788.2010 of the said Act, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader contended that both the Courts ignored the issuance of the notice to the plaintiff dated 19/11/1982 and 11/5/1983. As such, it can not be said that the N.A. assessment was being charged retrospectively. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, this aspect goes to the root of the matter. 4. Per contra, Mr. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent contends that whenever notice is not in accordance with the statute, then the Civil Suit is always maintainable. The learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 72 of 1989 to butress his submission. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. It is clear that the notices were issued on 19/11/1982 and 11/5/1983 claiming non agricultural cess of the year 1971. The Courts below have observed that N.A. assessment has to be fixed following the provisions of Section 110 to 120 of the Land Revenue Code. The said procedure was not followed and in view of that the notices issued were illegal and as such the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can always be invoked. It is also a trite law that the claim can not be made retrospectively. 3 SA 788.2010 7. In light of the above, the Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 788.2010