ANILKUMAR GOKULDAS RAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition impugns an order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in RTS Appeal No.343 of 2006, by which the said appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nashik has been confirmed. By the impugned orders, the Authorities below have levied forty times penalty for unauthorised use of NA (residential) as NA (commercial) for the period from 1998-2005.

(3.) The petitioner is the owner of City Survey No.1068/75C/ID, admeasuring 2023.41 sq.meters, (for short, "the said plot") situated at Manmad, Taluka Nandgaon, District-Nashik. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner's father by a registered sale deed dated 21.9.1972 from Mathurabai Deshmukh. It was already assessed to NA (Residential) purpose, under an order passed way back in the year 1933. In 1998, the petitioner submitted plans for construction of a hotel and shopping complex (for short, "the commercial complex") on the 1410 sq. meters out of the said plot and, accordingly, a commencement certificate under Permission No.1744 dated 7.8.1998 was granted by the concerned authority. Though the petitioner in the writ petition claims that he could not start the construction till 2003, he has clearly admitted in his statement dated 5.4.2005, annexed to the reply affidavit, that he commenced the construction of the commercial complex in 1998 itself. In view thereof respondent no.2, vide notice dated 11.3.2005, demanded Rs.1,79,830.00, which includes forty times penalty, by making assessment of the said plot for unauthorised N.A use from 1998 till 2005. The petitioner claims that forty times penalty thereafter was brought down to ten times and, accordingly, a demand was made vide notice dated 5.4.2005. No such order is placed on record on the basis of which the penalty was brought down from forty times to ten times. Assigning the very same reason, respondent no.1, once again, demanded N.A assessment of Rs.1,81,280/- from the petitioner for unauthorisedly changing the N.A user of the said plot vide notice dated 22.11.2005. That order was carried in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner who, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal.