Andhra Steel Rerolling Mills vs The Revenue Inspector

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.—The petitioner, M/s. Andhra Steel Rerolling Mills, Guntakal has filed this writ petition for quashing the proceedings of the Revenue Inspector, Guntakal Mandal dated 14-3-1989. By the said proceedings, the respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 34,234/- being the non-agricultural land assessment for the period Fasli 1388 to 1398. The area assessed is mentioned as 143 x 133 sq. matres. No other details or reasons for the assessment are referred to in the above said notice issued in Form-II as prescribed in the rule''s.

The petitioner''s case is that he petitioner has been assessed to non-agricultuial assessment in earlier years. The petitioner has filed a receipt dated 1-11-1988 bearing No. 398520 (Book No. F) showing payment of tax for Fasli 1397 and Fasli 1398 in a sum of Rs. 308/-for each fasli. This is also accepted in the counter-affidavit. The Revenue Inspector before issuing the impugned proceedings d/14-3-89 issued a notice d/2-3-89. The original thereof has been produced before us and it shows that the same has been affixed to the gate of the Mill on 3-3-89. There is a signature of a person mentioned as T. Lakshmana Ranganna. The said Ranganna must be an employee working under the respondent. The above said notice directs the petitioner to be present on 5-3-89 at 11 A.M. when the Mandal Revenue Officer would come to the premises of the mill and measure the land etc. The counter-affidavit reveals that measurement was made on 5-3-89 in the presence of the Manager of the Mill and that after such measurement, the impugned order was issued. The petitioner''s case in the reply affidavit is that the factory has been closed from October 1987 and that there is only a watchman at the premises of the Mill. They have denied that there was any Manager functioning at the mill premises or that any such Manager had noticed of the measurement or that he was present.

The petitioner has questioned the assessment as being violative of principles of natural justice and also on the ground that there is no provision in the Act or the rules providing for re-assessment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that there is proof of earlier assessment only in respect of two years viz., Faslies 1397 and 1398. The petitioner is unable to establish that there was any assessment earlier to Fasli 1397. Therefore, it is open to the respondent 10 make an assessment for the years other than the above two Faslies. However, for the purpose of making such assessment, the respondent should have followed the procedure envisaged in Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules.

Section 4 of the Act reads thus :

"4. Determination of assessment and issue of demand notice. The Revenue Inspector shall determine the assessment payable by an owner of non-agricultural land after making such inquiry as may be laid down by the rules made under this Act and cause a notice of demand to be served on the owner specifying the amount of such assessment which shall be paid within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand."

Rules 3 and 4 of the A.P. Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Rules, 1963 read as follows:

"Rule 3. In making an enquiry u/s 4 of the Act, the Revenue Inspector shall have power.

(a) to issue notice in Form I calling upon any person liable to pay assessment under the Act to furnish such information or produce such document or documents as are required for determining the assessment; and such person shall furnish such information as is required of him or produce or cause to be produced such document or documents on a date fixed by the Revenue Inspector. In default without sufficient cause to do so, the rate of assessment prescribed in the Schedule to Section 3 of the Act shall be levied on that land; and

(b) to enter upon, inspect, measure the land and do such act or acts as are necessary for the determination of the area liable to the assessment under the Act.

After completing the enquiry, the Revenue Inspector shall determine the assessment payable by the owner or occupier of the land and prepare a demand in Form II appended to these rules and cause it to be sewed on such owner or occupier of the land in the manner hereinafter prescribed specifying clearly the amount and the date before which it shall be paid as laid down in Section 4 of the Act."

Form No. I issued under Rule 3 (a) is a notice for attendance and production of documents. It envisages calling for the information in the possession of the person to whom a notice is issued and also implies clearly that the person could appear in person or by authorised representative and produce or cause to be produced, the said documents or give such evidence, before the Revenue Inspector. In our view, the said notice not only con templates calling for the information, but also contemplates an oral hearing in which evidence can be adduced by the person to whom the notice is issued.

On the facts of the present case, it is not clear as to why the respondent had to adopt the procedure of affixing the notice d/2-3-89 on the gate of the Mill. There is no material on record to show that the respondent tried other means of service of the notice on the Proprietors of the mill or any authorised person. Further, the said notice does not also disclose any basis upon which the assessment is proposed to be made. The procedure as stated above has not obviously been followed in the present case in so far as the assessment relates to the various years other than Faslies 1397 and 1398 We have, therefore, no option but to quash the impugned notice and remit the matter to the Revenue Inspector for making the assessment in accordance with the Act and Rules and in the light of the above observations.

So far as Faslies 1397 and 1398 are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no power vested in the Revenue Inspector for making any re-assessment. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to refer to any express provision in the Act which permits the Revenue Inspector to make a re-assessment. A Division Bench of this court in Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt, Ltd. Hyderabad v. Tahsildar, Golconda (W.P. No. 9998/84 d/7-4-88), 1988 (1) APLJ 71 (SN) has construed the provisions of Sections 3 to 6 of the Act and held that any mistake committed by the assessing authority, i.e., the Revenue Inspector, can be corrected only by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, neither the Revenue Inspector nor the Tahsildar or other Officer can seek to revise an assessment already made. The Division Bench held that in view of the scheme of the Act, if there is any mistake found to have been committed by the Revenue Inspector either in determining the extent of the land or the rates payable by the owner etc., such a mistake can be corrected not u/s 5 by the Tahsildar but only by the Revenue Divisional Officer u/s 6. We may add that even the Revenue Inspector cannot correct it u/s 4. The powers of the Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer being limited, as enumerated by Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the assessment already made by the Revenue Inspector can be revised only by the Revenue Divisional Officer in exercise of his suo motu powers. If, however, the assessee is aggrieved by the assessment, there is separate right of appeal as contemplated by the Act. But so far as the power of suo motu Revision is concerned, such a power is vested only in the Revenue Divisional Officer.

For the aforesaid reasons we hold that so far as Faslies 1397 and 1398 are concerned, the Revenue Inspector has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment already made. However, it is open to the Revenue Divisional Officer if he deems fit to consider whether he should exercise suo motu powers u/s 6 of the Act. Of course, before exercise of any such power he has to follow the principles of natural justice and has to give a hearing to the land-holder.

It is mentioned in the counter that the assessment for all the back years including the years Faslies 1397 and 1398 was made because of certain directions issued by the District Collector. We may point out that the District Collector is not vested with any power or authority under the Act for issuing directions to the statutory authorities viz., Revenue Inspector, the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer. It may be that as a superior authority the Collector may bring to the notice of his subordinates certain facts with a view to making them conscious of their powers or duties under the Act and the Rules. Further, merely because the District Collector has sent any such letter or communication, the Statutory authorities need not mechanically act upon the same irrespective of the merits of the case and the provisions of the Act and the Rules. If any facts are brought to their notice by the District Collector, the statutory authorities have to apply their mind independently ;to the same and to the provisions of the Act and they should also observe principles of natural justice before passing any orders.

In the result, we quash the impugned notice and remit the matter back to the Revenue Inspector for the purpose of finalising the assessment for the years other than Faslies 1397 and 1398 after giving due opportunity asset out above. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250/-