- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1593/2009 Sayed Masood Khadri s/o Sayed Musa Khadri, age 45 yrs., occu.business r/o New Khatib Colony, Udgir Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary of Town Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Latur. Dist.Latur. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Latur. Dist.Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 24.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned - 2 - counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 & 3 to refund the amount of non-agricultural tax paid by the petitioner. 4] It appears that the petitioner, who had purchased the land, applied to the respondents for non-agricultural assessment. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.96,605/-, which the petitioner deposited. Lateron, it was discovered that the land was an Inam land with restricted tenure holding and consequently conversion could not be done. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application seeking refund of the said amount. Though the aforesaid application was made by the petitioner on 28.5.2007, no steps have been taken by the respondent nos.2 & 3 for refund of the said amount. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondents has constrained the petitioner to file this petition in this Court. 5] On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that a proposal for sanction of the said amount of Rs.96,605/- has already been moved to the respondent no.1 by communication dated 3.8.2009 and necessary decision is awaited. Already more than one and half years have elapsed since the date of petitioner making an application seeking refund of the said amount. In the light of that, therefore, we direct that necessary sanction be accorded by the respondent no.1 and the amount of Rs.96,605/- be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from today. 6] By virtue of the order passed by this Court dated 28.7.2009, this Court had imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent no.3 as despite the communication from the office of the Government Pleader of Aurangabad Bench, - 3 - no instructions had been provided by the respondent no.3 for filing the affidavit in reply. This Court was constrained to impose the said cost as the hearing of the petition was delayed on account of want of instructions from the respondent no.3. Today the cost of Rs.10,000/- is deposited and the respondent no.3 in the affidavit in reply has tendered apology for not having provided the necessary instructions. We accept the said apology, but at the same time, warn the respondent no.3 in future to provide necessary instructions to the learned Government Pleader on receipt of the communication with promptitude. In the light of that, therefore, we direct that the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the respondent no.3 in this Court be refunded to the respondent no.3. 7] Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c248095