S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) T. P. nos. 37-a and 39. The said property originally was governed by the Bombay hereditary village officers' abolition act ('the act'), being service inam lands category-2. After the abolition of inams, the tahsildar issued notice for payment of non-agricultural assessment from 1-8-1955 to 1976 in a sum of Rs. 19,184-60 ps. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the special deputy commissioner, bijapur, challenging the levy of non-agricultural assessment. The deputy commissioner, by his order dated 13-6-1977 (Annexure-C), dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was belated. The demand was served on the party on 22-1-1972 and the appeal was filed on 11-11-1976. The appellate authority being not convinced with the reason stated for the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) AGAINST the said Order, the petitioner filed asecond-appeal before the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore. The tribunal, by its order dated 3rd may, 1980 (Annexure-D), dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the special deputy commissioner dismissing the appeal, as belated. These orders are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, ( 4 ) THIS court issued 'rule nisi' on 12-6-1981 and there was a stay of recovery of the demand of Rs. 19,184-60 ps. Subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 7,500/ -. ( 5 ) BOTH the special deputy commissioner and the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. But, it is urged by the petitioner in this writ petition that the very levy has to be declared as incompetent in view of the judgment of this court in manikant lakamsey v state of mysore, 1966 (1) mys. L. j. 387: AIR 1966 mys. 278, and a subsequent decision rendered in W. P. No. 2243/1970 (g. Hanumanthappa v state of mysore, dated 20-11-1972 ). ( 6 ) IN view of these two decisions, it was argued by Sri t. s. ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the levy itself is void, no plea of limitation is available to the state to oppose the case of the petitioner in this writ petition in which the very levy of non-agricultural assessment is challenged on the ground of lack of competency. It was, therefore, urged that notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals by the deputy commissioner as well as by the appellate tribunal, this is a fit case in which this court should interfere under article 226 and declare the levy against the petitioner as void and unenforceable. ( 7 ) IN the first case, that is manikant lakamsey case, this court struck down Rule 81 framed under the Bombay land revenue code as unconstitutional and hence void. Rule 81 provided for levy of non-agricultural assessment. This court, after considering the arguments advanced against the validity of the said Rule, held, that the Rule was liable to be struck down since the power conferred by the said Rule on the deputy commissioner was an unguided and uncontrolled power. ( 8 ) IN the second case, that is g. hanumanthappa's case, this court had occasionto consider the validity of Rule 60-b in chapter ix-a of the Mysore land revenue rules, which was introduced with effect from 21-2-1958. This Rule corresponds to Rule 81 of the Bombay land revenue rules. Following lakamsey's case, Rule 60-b was struck down, as unconstitutional and hence void. ( 9 ) AFTER the decision was rendered by this court in g. Hanumanthappa's case, the government issued a circular dated 14-2-1978 (Annexure-A), which is relied upon by the petitioner in support of the contentions urged in this writ petition. ( 10 ) THOUGH the circular was issued on 14-2-1978,the contents of the circular are very relevant and have a bearing on the present case. Reference is made in the said circular to W. P. No. 2243/1970 hi which the validity of Section 60-b was challenged before this court and was struck down for the very reasons given by this court in the earlier case of manikant lakamsey. The relevant portion from the circular which supports the petitioner's case is reproduced below: -"in view of the above decision of the high court holding Rule 60-b of the Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of india, levy of non-agricultural assessment under the Provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 83 of the act would, therefore, be without the authority of law and the same cannot be enforced. " ( 11 ) IT is further submitted by Sri t. s. ramachandrathat this circular holds good even now and no Rule is framed subsequently providing for the levy of non-agricultural assessment. However, this may not have any bearing so far as the present case is concerned since the demand made relates to the period 1-8-1955 to 1976. So far as the period 1-8-1955 to 29-2-1958 is concerned, the decision of this court in manikant lakamsey applies and g. Hanumanthappa's case applies to the second half of the period of impugned levy, viz. , From 20-2-1958 to 1976. Therefore, the two decisions cover the entire period. ( 12 ) IN the light of the ratio of the two decisions referred to above, the demand made against the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 19,184-60 ps. being the non-agricultural assessment, cannot be sustained. ( 13 ) IN the result, the writ petition is accordingly allowed,and it is declared that the said levy is void and unenforceable, and the order of the special deputy commissioner, bijapur dated 13-6-1977 (Annexure-C) and the order passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore dated 3-5-1980 (Annexure-D), are quashed. --- *** --- .