9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner is a 'government lessee' and therefore not liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment? 2. Whether the Appellant being a tenant of the Development Authority, the demand for non-agricultural assessment could be made only on the Development Authority and not against the tenant? Issue-wise detailed analysis: Re: Issue (i): Whether the Petitioner is a 'government lessee' and therefore not liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment? The Appellant argued that it was a 'government lessee' and thus not liable to pay non-agricultural assessment. According to Section 2(11) read with Section 38 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, a 'government lessee' is defined as a lessee under a lease granted by a Collector in regard to unalienated unoccupied land belonging to the government. The lands in question were leased by the Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (Development Authority) and not by the Collector. Therefore, the lands were not government lands, and the lessor was not the government. The Appellant's claim to be a 'government lessee' was rejected. The Appellant relied on a state government Circular dated 29.3.1975, which stated that MIDC (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation) was the agent of the state government and thus its lessees were considered government lessees, exempt from non-agricultural assessment. However, the Development Authority, unlike MIDC, was not recognized as an agent of the state government. The Development Authority is a body corporate under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), with the power to acquire, hold, manage, and dispose of property. There was no evidence to suggest that the Development Authority was acting as an agent of the state government in leasing the lands to the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant could not be considered a government lessee. Re: Issue (ii): Whether the Appellant being a tenant of the Development Authority, the demand for non-agricultural assessment could be made only on the Development Authority and not against the tenant? The Appellant argued that as a tenant of the Development Authority, the primary liability to pay land revenue (including non-agricultural assessment) lay with the Development Authority, as per Section 39 and Section 168 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Section 39 makes the occupant liable to pay land revenue, and Section 168(1)(a) reiterates that the occupant (in this case, the Development Authority) is primarily liable. However, Section 168(2) allows for recovery from the person in possession (the tenant) in case of default by the occupant. The Development Authority, with the previous approval of the state government, had made regulations under Section 159 of the MRTP Act, known as the "Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1973." Regulation 10(iv) and 10(v) explicitly stated that the lessee (Appellant) shall pay all rates, taxes, and land revenue assessed on the demised land. Clause 2(c) of the lease deed between the Development Authority and the Appellant reiterated this obligation. Thus, while the Development Authority is primarily liable under Section 39, the statutory regulations and lease terms passed this liability to the Appellant, making it responsible for paying the non-agricultural assessment directly to the state government. The court concluded that the state government could directly demand payment from the Appellant without first demanding it from the Development Authority. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting the Appellant's contention that it was a government lessee and therefore not liable for non-agricultural assessment. The court also affirmed that the Appellant, as a tenant, was liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment directly to the state government under the statutory regulations and lease terms. The appeal was dismissed, but the Appellant was given the liberty to file representations or objections regarding the quantum of the non-agricultural assessment. The Appellant was also ordered to pay interest on the arrears at the rate of 9% per annum from 26.2.2002.
|
