TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay. The petitioner has challenged the assessment mainly on two grounds : 1. That the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, under which the assessment in question has been made, does not apply to the land in question in as much as the said land, according to the petitioner, falls within the City of Bombay to which the provisions of the Code are not applicable by virtue of section 1(2) thereof. 2. That, the official assessment made ₹ 25/- per 100 sq.mtrs. is not in accordance with the requirements of section 116 of the Code which restricts the power of the authority concerned while revising N.A. assessment to raise it to an amount not exceeding two times the land revenue payable immed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court prior to extension of its jurisdiction in 1945. This definition, therefore, has to be read accordingly. On the face of the specific limitation to the area put by the definition itself, the question of giving an extended meaning to this expression by interpreting it in a manner so as to include what has come to be known in course of time as `City of Bombay' or areas which got included in the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court by amendments made from time to time can not arise. 3. It may be expedient in this connection to note that in Clause (21) of section 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning as given in the General Clauses Act, the land of the petitioner will not fall in `City of Bombay'. That being so, I do not find any force in the first submission of the petitioner in regard to the applicability of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1966 to the land in question which is situated in village Andheri, which does not fall within the definition of `City of Bombay' as discussed above. 6. The next grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the rate at which the land has been assessed by the Tahsildar, which has also been upheld by all the authorities on appeal and revision. This grievance is based on the proviso of section 116 of the Code which reads as under: Provided that, when the non-agricultural assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst proviso is always to be considered in the context of the revenue that was payable immediately before the revision. The counsel drew my attention to the fact that the rate of assessment for the period between 1966 to 1971 was ₹ 9/- per 100 sq. mtrs. The revision was due in 1971 and, accordingly, from that period it was revised to ₹ 18/- per 100 sq. mtrs. In 1978, the petitioner demolished the old structure and constructed new structure and, as such, became liable to revised assessment and in that view of the matter, the rate was fixed with effect from 1-8-1979 at ₹ 25/- per 100 sq. mtrs. as against ₹ 18/- which was the rate immediately before the revision. It was, therefore, submitted that considering the revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
