IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 2009 Beeline Impex (Private) Limited and others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akram Bastivi i/by M/s. Harilal Thakar & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 15th October, 2008 passed by respondent No.2 and the default notice dated 24th November, 2008 passed in furtherance thereto. 2. The contention before us is that the land in question would be liable to levy in terms of Section 115 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 only from the date it is put to non-agricultural use. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State, however, contends that though the permission to use the land for non- agricultural purposes was issued on 4th June, 2001 leveling and filling up of the land is done after 4th June, 2001 and they had raised some construction however may not be a substantial construction. As far as the provisions of Section 115 of the Act is concerned, it does not require any detailed discussion in view of the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. v. Talathi of Village Chikhali and others, 2007(5) Mh. L.J. 45 where it has been held that the levy shall be payable from the date of actual user of the land for non-agricultural purposes. It is also not in dispute that the permission was granted on 4th June, 2001. The other factual dispute is that as to when exactly the construction, if any, was raised and as to when leveling and filling up of the land has been done. No clear finding has been recorded in the impugned order in this regard. Consequently, no matter of appreciation of facts on this point is available. 4. We do not consider it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We while setting aside the order dated 15th October, 2008 limited to that ground, remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for determination afresh in accordance with law, however, the authorities concerned shall keep in mind the governing principles of law as stated in the judgment referred above. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.