Undefined statutory terms follow the general clauses law, and revised non-agricultural assessment must stay within the section 116 ceiling.
An undefined expression in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was construed by reference to the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904: "City of Bombay" was limited to the area within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court before the 1945 extension, and was distinct from "Greater Bombay." On that construction, village Andheri did not fall within the "City of Bombay," so the Code remained applicable to the non-agricultural assessment. The revised assessment was also held to stay within the statutory ceiling in section 116, because the limit is measured against the amount payable immediately before the relevant revision and the later increase remained within twice that amount.
Issues: (i) whether the land situated in village Andheri fell within the "City of Bombay" so as to exclude the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 from applying to the non-agricultural assessment; (ii) whether the revised non-agricultural assessment exceeded the ceiling prescribed for revision under section 116 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Issue (i): whether the land situated in village Andheri fell within the "City of Bombay" so as to exclude the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 from applying to the non-agricultural assessment.
Analysis: The expression "City of Bombay" was not defined in the Code and was therefore read in the sense given by section 3(10) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. That definition confined the expression to the area within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court immediately before the 1945 extension. The statutory scheme separately used and defined "Greater Bombay" in section 3(21) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, showing that the two expressions were distinct and not interchangeable. On that construction, the land at Andheri could not be treated as part of the "City of Bombay".
Conclusion: The objection to the applicability of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 failed and was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): whether the revised non-agricultural assessment exceeded the ceiling prescribed for revision under section 116 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Analysis: The proviso to section 116 limits a revised assessment to twice the land revenue payable immediately before revision where the land is used for residential buildings. The assessment had earlier stood at Rs. 9 per 100 sq. mtrs., was revised to Rs. 18 per 100 sq. mtrs., and later increased to Rs. 25 per 100 sq. mtrs. after demolition of the old structure and construction of a new one. The ceiling had to be tested with reference to the amount payable immediately before the relevant revision, and the later increase remained within that statutory limit. The revision was also consistent with the operation of the guaranteed period under section 113(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Conclusion: The challenge to the revised assessment failed and was against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The assessment was upheld on both grounds, and no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute uses an undefined expression, it must be construed according to the definition in the cognate general clauses law, and a revised non-agricultural assessment is valid if it remains within the statutory ceiling measured from the assessment immediately preceding the relevant revision.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
