(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1371 OF 1994 Yuvaraj Asarji Devadhe, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Mohaj-Devadhe, Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 3. The Collector, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. 4. The Tahsildar, Pathardi, Taluka : Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar. 5. Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, Through its Chief Executive Officer. ....................... (2) Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.K. Kakade and Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has challenged the increase in levy of cess on the land revenue. By the impugned decision of the State Government, dated 1st March 1994, the State Government had granted permission to the Zilla Parishad to increase cess at the rate of 700 Paise on every rupee of the sum payable to the State Government. 2. The petition is filed on the ground that the Act provides for maximum of 200 Paise and, therefore, such a levy is beyond the competence of the Zilla Parishad. (3) 3. It appears that the impugned decision of the State Government is subsequent to the amendment carried out to the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Act, which was brought into effect on 12th February 1993. By the said amendment, the words "200 Paise" has been substituted with "700 Paise". It is, thus, clear that the impugned increase in cess is within the limits as prescribed under the amended statute. The said amendment to the Zilla Parishad Act has neither been challenged nor a prayer for quashing such amendment is made. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned decision is within the statutory limits as amended by 1993 Act. Hence, no case is made out for interference. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1371