1 W.P. 5024/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5024 OF 1996 Ramesh Madhavdas Wani & Oths. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another ... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.M.Shah, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12/07/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenges the demand notice issued by respondent no. 2 dated 17/10/1996, by which they were called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 60,007/- and calling upon them as to why same should not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. It appears that in the agricultural land owned by the petitioners, the Collector, Dhule passed an order thereby granting permission of use of the said land for non agricultural purpose. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the said permission till 2 W.P. 5024/1996 1994 he has sold various plots on the said lay out. He submits that all of a sudden in the year 1996, he received the impugned notice. 3. Mr. Shah, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that no details are given in the said demand notice. He submits that directly demand notice is issued to the petitioner. The said notice is not sustainable in law. 4. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that the notice was given to the petitioner in accordance with the letter issued by the senior Accounts Officer from the office of the Accountant General ( Audit ), Nagpur. 5. From the perusal of Exh. B, it appears that the order dated 17/10/1996 has been issued to the petitioner without calling upon him to show cause as to how the said amount was payable. If it was the case of the respondents that the petitioner was liable to pay any higher amount than the one which he had already paid towards non agricultural assessment, then it was incumbent to issue him show cause notice. If the respondents rely on the Audit report, it is also necessary to supply a copy of Audit report to the petitioner in as much as the principles of natural justice would require the authorities to supply such a material to a party, which had been taken into 3 W.P. 5024/1996 consideration against such a party. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 17/10/1996 is bad in law in non following the principles of natural justice. The said notice is, therefore, quashed and set aside. 7. Needless to state that if the respondent desires to take any steps, the same may be taken in accordance with law and in light of the observations above. 8. Rule is made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 5024.1996