ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner applied for the grant of a Patta in respect of the land in suit which consists of Khasra No. 584 of village Datia Gird, area 10 acres, known as "Radhasagar". On 2-12-1957 the Assistant Collector granted Patta to the Petitioner. The grant of Patta is being challenged by the Government and the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional powers has set aside the Patta and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision regarding the grant of Patta. In the mean time the Petitioner had applied for the land in dispute being assessed to land revenue. The assessment of the land was made by the Collector at Rs. 5,000 on the basis of the lease money fetched by the land at an auction held in the year 1953-54. Being aggrieved by this assessment the Petitioner went up in appeal before the Commissioner and thereafter the Board of Revenue, unsuccessfully. He has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the order of assessment praying for a writ directing a fresh assessment of the land. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State that since the grant of Patta has been set aside it is not necessary to consider the question of assessment. We are, however, not impressed by this contention because the question of the grant of Patta is still under consideration as the case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector for deciding the matter afresh. The question of assessment would, however, be material only in the event of the Patta being granted to the Petitioner. We, therefore, propose to consider the question of assessment raised in this petition. Under Section 60 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') it has been laid down that on all lands on which the assessment has not been made the assessment of land revenue shall be made by the Collector in accordance with rules made under this Code. It is not disputed that the land in question was not previously assessed to land revenue. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to have the land assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section. It is not disputed that the land in question was not previously assessed to land revenue. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to have the land assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Government has framed Rules under the aforesaid section and Rule 2 of the Rules lays down that the land which has not been assessed, shall be assessed at the rate for similar soil in the same or neighbouring villages. It would appear from the order of the Board of Revenue that the Board proceeded to maintain the assessment made by the Collector on the ground that Section 60 of the Code is not attracted in this case. The view taken by the Board does not appear to be correct and in fact this position has not been questioned by the learned Government Advocate. The revenue Courts have also relied on the entry made by the Settlement Commissioner in the assessment Book of the Settlement of Samvat 2000. The entry is to the effect that since no rates can be fixed for the area which lay in the bed of tanks the best course would be to let out the area at the rents which are offered at an open competition. This is entirely a different matter. The procedure suggested in the entry is apparently applicable to lands which are leased out from year to year. It cannot be followed in a same way where a Patta is granted in respect of the land. This entry could not, therefore, furnish a guide for the assessment in this case. The very idea of the assessment is to fix a rate which is uniformly applicable to all who are in possession of similar lands, and that is the principle underlying the Rules framed under Section 60 of the Code. It was, therefore, not proper for the Collector to fix the assessment on the basis of the lease money fetched by the land in a particular year. The assessment made by the Collector and upheld by the Board of Revenue is, therefore, arbitrary and not according to law. It must, therefore, be quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the assessment made of the land is question is hereby quashed. The case shall go back to the Collector for a fresh decision according to law. The assessment made by the Collector and upheld by the Board of Revenue is, therefore, arbitrary and not according to law. It must, therefore, be quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the assessment made of the land is question is hereby quashed. The case shall go back to the Collector for a fresh decision according to law. In case it is ultimately decided that the Petitioner is not entitled to any Patta no question of assessment may arise. In the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Petition allowed