STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARGIS B MEWAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in these group of Appeals is a common question and the judgment in S.A. No. 382/79 will apply to all the appeals. It is enough to State the facts in S.A. No. 382 of 1979, because the facts in all other appeals are similar, though the dates vary, without making any distinction on principle.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant. The plot of land Survey No. 637, C.T.S. 4644 situate at Dhulia belongs to the plaintiff. As early as on 13/7/1916 Sanad was issued in favour of the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-title permitted her the N.A. user of the land. As per the Sanad, she was required to pay the assessment of Rs. 7-10-0 for the land and a guarantee was given that the said assessment will not be varied for a period of 50 years from 17-7-1917. Thereafter, in the year 1949 there was a revision of the assessment of the lands in general. But from the very nature of things, the revision could have no application to the said land which was the subject matter of the Sanad issued on 13-7-1916 (which will be referred to hereafter as the "suit land") and hence assessment went on being recovered from the plaintiff at the rate of 7-10-0 by the government. All the entries in the revenue records showed that the assessment levied on the land was 7-10-0 right till the date of the impugned notice. On 13-7-1966, the guarantee given by the Government for the fixed assessment of 7-10-0 came to an end. But the Revenue Record continued to show that the assessment was levied and collected at the rate of 7-10-0 add only that much amount was being recovered from the plaintiff right till 13-4-1972. In the year 1970, there was once again the revision of the assessment. But in spite of the said revision, the amount of assessment continued to be recovered from the plaintiff at the rate of 7-10-0 till 13-4-1972. On 13-4-1972, a notice was given to the plaintiff by the Talathi demanding a sum of Rs. 410.18 as difference in the amount of actual assessment claimed by the Government and the amount paid by the plaintiff. The period for which the difference was claimed was not mentioned. As to how much amount was levied upon the plaintiff was not mentioned. A blank demand for the amount was made mentioning that was the difference in the amount of assessment. Hence, the plaintiff filed the instant suit on 29-11-1972 for the declaration that the notice was illegal and unlawful and for an injunction restraining the defendant/Government from recovering the amount from the plaintiff.

(3.) The Government filed its written statement at Exh. 21 and raised various contentions in defence. But only the following contentions are pressed into service before me. They are:-