1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4619 OF 2009 Kashinath Pandurang Sonawane : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr. Ajay Magare for the Petitioner Mr. R P Behere, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 12th October 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. By the above Petition, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order communciated by the Desk Officer, Revenue and Forest Department, State of Maharashtra dated 4.3.2009 whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay 50% Nazrana to the Government of Maharashtra as per the market value for non agricultural use. It is not disputed that the Survey No.97/1/2 B/3 A/1 situated at village Satana Tal Baglan Dist Nashik was originally belonging to Deshmukh Vatandar and falling under Inam Land 2 Class No.5 The said Inam has been abolished. After the abolition of the said Inam, the Petitioner has paid 20% of the assessment to the State Government, and therefore the land was allotted to the predecessors of the Petitioner on ordinary tenure, usually called as old tenure. Now the Petitioner desires to convert the said land to the non-agricultural use, and therefore approach the Respondents. The Respondents have passed the impugned order. 2. In view of the undisputed fact that by the Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000 the Land Tenure Abolition Laws have been compiled together. It has been stated that in so far as the lands which are covered under the Watan Abolition Act, 1950 that the amount of nazarana should be equal to 20 times the assessment, if the land is or is intended to be used for agricultural purposes only provided that if the agricultural use of the land is subsequently changed for a purpose other than agriculture the holder shall be liable to pay under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code a fine equal to the difference between the 50 per cent of the market value and the twenty times the assessment of land. Therefore, the State Government should have issued an order calculating the penalty as provided under this Clause in stead they have directly asked the Petitioner to pay 50% of the market value as Nazarana 3 amount. Such an order is not sustainable in view of the above referred provision. 3. We therefore quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the State Government to pass an order under the above referred section and the Petitioner shall pay the penalty or nazarana in accordance with the said order. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]