GOPINATH GANPATRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur has made the Civil Reference to this Court under Section 13 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (for short, the Act of 1876 ). He has expressed his doubt whether he is precluded by the Act of 1876 from taking cognizance of the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from collecting or recovering the non-agricultural charges from the plaintiff for the years 1968 to 1989, as claimed by the defendants in their Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990.

(2.) Gopinath filed the suit against the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Dist.Latur and the Tahsildar, Latur in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, praying for perpetual injunction against the defendants from collecting or recovering non-agricultural charges for the years 1968 to 1989 from the plaintiff, as claimed in the Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990 and restraining them from increasing or enhancing non-agricultural assessment charges for the year 1968 to 1989. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that he was owner in possession of the suit plot bearing city survey No.5442 situate at Latur. He claims to have purchased the said plot for the residential as well as commercial purposes by the registered sale deed. The said plot admeasures 3983 square meters. Out of which, according to the plaintiff, 1000 square meters is under residential and commercial use and the remaining part of the plot is open and vacant. The said plot is said to have been converted into non-agricultural land in the year, 1968. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he has paid all non-agricultural assessment charges upto the year 1989 as per the assessment made by the concerned officer. However, the Tahsildar Latur (Defendant No.2) issued a demand notice of non-agricultural assessment charges of Rs.74,304/- for the period from 11.05.1968 to 31.07.1990. Three days time was given to the plaintiff to deposit the said amount failing which it was stated in the Notice that appropriate steps for recovery of the amount will be taken. Thereafter, the Tahsildar Latur issued another notice for attachment of the plaintiff s property for want of payment of Rs.74,304. The plaintiff has set up the case that the demand made in the Notice and the threat to recover the said amount by the Tahsildar, Latur is wholly illegal and contrary to law necessiting the reliefs from the Civil Court in the suit filed by him.

(3.) The Act of 1876 came into force on 28th March, 1876. It was enacted to limit the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts throughout the Bombay Presidency in matters relating to the land revenue and for other ancillary purpose. Section 4 provides bar of certain suits to specific court thus :