HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue), which decides the question regarding the liability of the petitioner company to pay the non-agricultural tax in respect of the subject land in its possession at Ojhar, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with all the dates and events that precede, the decision under challenge. Suffice it to mention that the revenue authorities issued demand notice to the petitioner company demanding amount towards non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject land, being sum of Rs. 10,98,11,575/ -. That demand was disputed by the petitioner on the premise that the title of the land vested with the Union of India and that the petitioner company was Government controlled company. In the circumstances, it was contended that the subject land could not be subjected to non-agricultural assessment, in view of the mandate of Article 285 (1) of Constitution of India. To vindicate its stand the petitioner had challenged the demand notice before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 6209 of 2001 which was disposed of on 16-1-2002 by directing the respondent No. 1 who is the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to decide the question about the liability of the petitioner company to pay non-agricultural assessment in respect of the suit land, if any. Pursuant to the said order, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) has examined the matter and has answered the issue against the petitioner company by the impugned order. The main premise on which the impugned order proceeds is that the petitioner was using the subject land and, therefore, liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment. The order proceeds to record that it has been observed that the land in question was acquired by the State Government for Central Government for the M. I. G. project and after acquisition it was handed over to the Central Government who in turn handed over the same to the petitioner for establishing M. I. G. Aircraft factory and as such the petitioner company is using the land in question. The Secretary in his order has further opined that it is not correct to say that the land is owned or used by the Central Government. Accordingly, the Secretary has held that non-agricultural assessment was applicable to the said land and the petitioner being a separate juristic person was not entitled to claim exemption under Article 285 of the Constitution of India. The Secretary while returning finding that the land does not belong to the Central Government has adverted to the entries in the record of rights which would indicate that the names of private land owners were deleted by entering the name of the Central Government and the Central Government having acquired the land for H. A. L. , the name of Central Government is deleted and M. I. G. defence project is entered in 7 x 12 extract. This is the principal premise on which the Secretary proceeded to decide the issue.

(2.) THE present writ petition takes exception to the above order of the Secretary. It is mainly argued that the Secretary has not properly examined the core issue, namely, as to whether the subject land was the property of the Union? According to the petitioner if that issue was to be answered in the affirmative then as a necessary corollary the suit land cannot be subjected to non-agricultural assessment, being exempted by virtue of Article 285 (1) of Constitution of India. It is contended that if the subject property is of the Union then mere possession of the petitioner would be of no avail cannot be the basis for levy of non-agricultural assessment. The petitioner has also taken exception to some of the observations made in the impugned order being unwarranted.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents contends that no fault can be found with the view taken by the Secretary that the land could be subjected to non-agricultural assessment as record would indicate that the Central Government was not the owner of the suit land. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision reported in A. I. R. 1999 S. C. 173 (M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue Deptt. , Government of Andhra Pradesh and others) as well as A. I. R. 1999 S. C. 2552 (Board of Trustees for the Visakhapatnam Port Trust v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)