1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2554 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2554 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2554 OF 2009 Ispat Industries Ltd. Petitioners vs. The Collector,Dist.Raigad & ors. Respondents Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Srivastav, Advocate i/b.M/s.S.K.Srivastav for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for the Respondents-State. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 2nd April, 2009 P.C. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the various demand notices including an order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the respective respondents. 3. This Court by an Order dated 23.01.2009 in Writ Order dated 23.01.2009 in Writ Order dated 23.01.2009 in Writ Petition Petition Petition No.1673-09-Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. The No.1673-09-Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. The No.1673-09-Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. The Collector, Collector, Collector, Dist.Raigad & ors. Dist.Raigad & ors. Dist.Raigad & ors., on earlier occasion, where similar challenge was raised, observed as under: "6. The Collector, Raigad is hereby directed to decide the proceeding pending before him with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within six weeks from today. If the order of the 2 Collector is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from date of its communication. All rival contentions on merits are kept open." 4. The Collector instead of deciding the same on merits directed the parties to approach under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) to Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag has passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 thereby directed to pay 50% of the amount as per demand notices and further observed that preliminary hearing shall be after depositing the money, by the Tahsildar. It appears that the Authorities moved ahead on a foundation as if there were pre-requisite orders passed by the Collector of assessment as contemplated under Section 110 of the Code. 6. Section 110 of the Code contemplates that the Collector should determine non-agricultural assessment for future, based upon amended notification. That is also subject to approval of the Commissioner. It means that the Collector is the only Authority to decide & pass assessment orders and no other Officer. There is nothing pointed out that the Collector can delegate this power of determination of non-agricultural assessment of 3 land in non-urban areas like the present one. 7. The respondents have filed affidavit dated 18.03.2009 and submitted that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said affidavit support the impugned demand by stating that the non-agricultural assessment made by the Tahsildar is correct. Those paragraphs as reproduced below, no way supports the mandate that the Collector should determine/assess first and then demand notice by the Tahsildar to follow. An assessment order must follow demand notice and not vice versa. "6. I say that the State Government has made Amendment to the Section 110(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code whereby the Non-agricultural Assessment of land falling in Class-I villages are required to be calculated at the rate of not more than 10 paise per sq.mtrs. instead of original 2 paise per sq.mtr. and the land falling in Class-II villages are required to be calculated at the rate of not more than 5 paise per sq.mtrs. instead of not more than 1 paise per sq.mtrs. I say that the lands owned by the petitioner company are in villages falling in Class-I and therefore, the Non-Agricultural Assessment in respect of the said lands has been calculated as 10 paise per sq.mtrs. As per the Amendment to the Section 110(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and also instructions issued by Revenue and Forest Department vide Circular No.NAAA/1005/Case No.7/L-5 dated 23/10/2007. 7. I say that the Non-Agricultural Assessment made by the Tahsildar is absolutely correct and made by the following lawful procedure." 8. It is very clear therefore that there was no prior assessment or such order passed by the Collector as 4 contemplated under the Code. The demand notices therefore issued before determinating the assessment as required is therefore without jurisdiction. There is nothing on record and/or even averred in the affidavit that the Collector, at any point of time, though the petitioners representation is pending for the same, decided or passed any order of assessment as required. Therefore such demand notices and all actions arising out of the same including the insistence for 50% of the amount before hearing of the Appeal which is admittedly pending, is also without jurisdiction. 9. The petitioners are definitely bound to pay the amount if assessed in accordance with law. Such procedure & such demands are no where contemplated under the Code. These demand notices and all actions arising out of the same, according to me, are without jurisdiction and void ab-initio. 10. Resultantly, the demand notices and the subsequent actions/orders as issued by the respective respondents are quashed and set aside. The Collector as contemplated under the Code to decide and pass appropriate assessment order, as early as, possible after giving hearing to both the parties. 11. In view of above, it is necessary for the Collector 5 to determine the non-agricultural assessment of the lands. Therefore, the Collector, Raigad, is hereby again directed to decide the application/representation of the petitioners, if any, pending before him and even otherwise, as referred above, at any rate, within six weeks from today. If the order of the Collector is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from date of its communication. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]