KASHINATH DEGADULAL OIL MILL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the Respondents. By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 13th March, 1991 passed by the learned Collector of Nashik, refusing to entertain the Appeal filed by the Petitioners under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 with regard to the demand notice dated 30th March, 1991. However, it appears that as far as the Petitioners are concerned, originally, the land revenue was fixed in the year 1924 and as per the earlier provisions of the Land Revenue Code, the said land revenue was guaranteed for a period of 50 years. In the mean while the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 came into force and the Tahsildar of Malegaon had issued a demand notice dated 30th March, 1991 demanding the land revenue right from 1981-82 to 1987-88, 1988-89, 1985-86 to 1987-88, and 1988-89 to put it in other words, by the said notice, the land revenue was demanded for the period from 1981-82 to 1988-89. Thereafter, the Respondents Revenue Authority seems to have issued two more notices demanding the land revenue from the Petitioners. With regard to the last notice, the Petitioners appear to have filed the aforesaid Appeal challenging the basis on which such revision has been effected by the Tahsildar.

(2.) MR .Dani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly sought to contend that in the light of the provisions of section 120 read with section 116 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the revision which has been adopted by the Revenue Authority, is totally unjustified.

(3.) PERUSAL of section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, clearly indicates that an Appeal would lie against any decision or order passed by a Revenue or certain Officer specified in column-1 of Schedule-E under this Act. Admittedly, the aforesaid demand made by the Tahsildar is a purported revision demanding certain amount by way of arrears of land revenue payable by the Petitioner. The same cannot be treated that it is not a decision or order and as such no Appeal lies. If such constructions were to be adopted, the Petitioner would have no remedy in law to challenge the levy and establish such a contention that the entire revision is totally contrary to the aforesaid provisions of section 120 read with section 116 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.