JUDGMENT - PATEL H.D., J.:—The petitioners in these petitions are either societies, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, or individuals or partnership firms or the public trust also registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The societies have filed the petitions on behalf of its members, who like other petitioners, were allotted plots either for the purposes of erecting structures for residence, industry, commerce or for other non-agricultural purpose. All of them have filed petitions seeking a direction to prohibit the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust from recovering the land revenue in the form of non-agricultural assessment in respect of plots held by them. 2. The Nagpur Improvement Trusts Act, 1936 was enacted with the sole object of providing planned development of Nagpur City. In order to carry out this object, the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust framed various schemes after acquiring land by following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the scheme, layouts are prepared and the plots therein are allotted to interested persons for the purpose of non-agricultural use. The respondent Trust in whom the land vests under section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act is the holder of unalienated land and hence an occupant under section 2(23) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The plots are allotted by the respondent Trust in accordance with the Nagpur Improvement Trust (Land Disposal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 3 provides the method by which allotment of plot has to be made. It could be by direct negotiation or by public auction or by inviting tenders or by concessional rate. Rule 7 provides the manner in which the transfer of plots is to be effected to the allottees. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 every transfer shall be made by lease and every lease in respect of any piece of land shall either be of thirty years or ninety years with a right of renewal by the lessor. Other modes of transfer like outright sale or exchange is provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 every transfer shall be made by lease and every lease in respect of any piece of land shall either be of thirty years or ninety years with a right of renewal by the lessor. Other modes of transfer like outright sale or exchange is provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7. The only provision in the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act relating to the power for disposal of land is contained in section 76 which provides that subject to the rules framed by the State Government, the Trust may retain or may let on hire, lease, sell or exchange or otherwise dispose of the land vested in it or acquired by it under this very Act. Obviously, therefore, the Land Disposal Rules are framed by the State Government under section 76 of the Act. It is under these rules that the Nagpur Improvement Trust have allotted plots to members of the petitioner societies and other petitioners on lease-hold rights. 3. It appears that during subsistence of the lease period, some where in the year 1978, the State Government commenced proceedings for levy of non-agricultural assessment on the land converted to non-agricultural use by the Nagpur Improvement Trust for implementing various schemes. As disclosed in the return filed by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 2251 of 1982 the superior holder of the land, who according to the State Government is liable for payment of non-agricultural assessment, never co-operated in the proceedings beyond making representations against such levy. The cases of levy then pending before the Additional Tahsildar were decided and raised the demand for payment of non-agricultural assessment against the Nagpur Improvement Trust. It appears that the Nagpur Improvement Trust passed on this liability to the allottees of the plots like petitioners or members of the petitioner societies. Aggrieved thereby these petitions are filed. Since indentical reliefs are sought in all the petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The petitioners claimed that non-agricultural assessment is nothing but a land revenue which under the Land Disposal Rules is payable only by the Trust and not the allottees. They also claimed that the responsibility for payment of non-agricultural assessment is that of the Nagpur Improvement Trust under section 168 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 5. 4. The petitioners claimed that non-agricultural assessment is nothing but a land revenue which under the Land Disposal Rules is payable only by the Trust and not the allottees. They also claimed that the responsibility for payment of non-agricultural assessment is that of the Nagpur Improvement Trust under section 168 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 5. On behalf of the Nagpur Improvement Trust it was contended that non-agricultural assessment is a levy which cannot be said to be a land revenue since both the terms are separately defined in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In any event the Nagpur Improvement Trust can enforce recovery against the allottees like the petitioners since under the agreement of lease each of them has undertaken to pay rates, taxes, charges and assessment of every type and description and, therefore, the Trust was justified in recovering the non-agricultural assessment from the petitioners. 6. Rule 9 of the Land Disposal Rules reads as under:— “9. Where land revenue is payable in respect of any plot so transferred, such land revenue shall be payable by the Trust.” A perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly indicates that the liability to pay the land revenue to the State Government in respect of any plot that is transferred by the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust under the Land Disposal Rules is cast on the Nagpur Improvement Trust and none else. The land revenue referred to in Rule 9 could not be of land used for agricultural purpose. The land revenue has to be levied with reference to the use to which the land is put to. This would be clear from section 67 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code which provides that the land revenue leviable on any land under the provisions of the Code shall be assessed or shall be deemed to have been assessed, as the case may be with reference to the use of the land which can be for the purpose of agriculture or for the purpose of residence or for the purpose of industry or for the purpose of commerce or any other purpose. The section clearly indicates that the levy assessed depending upon the use of the land, which includes even non-agricultural use, is a land revenue irrespective of the fact that the levy may be called non-agricultural assessment. The section clearly indicates that the levy assessed depending upon the use of the land, which includes even non-agricultural use, is a land revenue irrespective of the fact that the levy may be called non-agricultural assessment. No doubt the non-agricultural assessment has been separately defined from land revenue, but separate definitions do not exclude one from the other. The non-agricultural assessment means assessment fixed on any land under the provisions of the Code or Rules thereunder with reference to the use of land for non-agricultural purpose. Land revenue as defined means all sums and payments, in money, received and legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government from any person on account of any land or interest in or right exercisable over land, held by or vested in him under whatever designation such sum may be payable. The definition also includes various other items with which we are not concerned. Suffice it to say that the assessment made for non-agricultural use of the land is also included in the broad definition of 'land revenue', though it is separately termed also as non-agricultural assessment. It may be so to distinguish from the land revenue which is levied on land used for agricultural use only. The land revenue has to be levied on every land with reference to its use. This is further clear from the title of Chapter VII which reads “Assessment and Settlement of Land Revenue of Land used for Non-agricultural purposes”. There is no doubt left that the non-agricultural assessment is nothing, but a land revenue as defined under the Act. 7. We have construed the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code because assessment of non-agricultural assessment was made by the State Government after that Code had come into force. No doubt the Land Disposal Rules were brought into force only from July, 1955 and at the relevant time the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 was in force. Scanning of the relevant provisions like sections 51, 52, 96 and 98 of the said Code will also indicate that the assessment for non-agricultural land is nothing, but land revenue in very clear terms. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust that the assessment levied for non-agricultural use is not a land revenue as contemplated by either of the Land Revenue Codes. 8. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust that the assessment levied for non-agricultural use is not a land revenue as contemplated by either of the Land Revenue Codes. 8. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the Land Disposal Rules, 1983 which are brought into force in supersession of the Land Disposal Rules, 1955. Rule 11 of the new Rules is as follows: “11. Payment of land revenue.—The lessee shall during the continuance of the lease pay land revenue non-agricultural assessment and cesses assessed or which may be assessed on the demised land.” No comments are needed because the wording used in the Rule are very clear. By this rule a lessee is made liable to pay land revenue non-agricultural assessment in respect of the land held by him. Apart from the change brought about, the non-agricultural assessment is termed as land revenue non-agricultural assessment. Therefore, the conclusion drawn as aforesaid stands further fortified. 9. The Chapter XI deals with “Realisation of Land Revenue and other Revenue Demands”. Section 168(1) thereof provides for liability of persons to pay land revenue. It makes the 'occupant' of unalienated land or the lessee of the State Government primarily liable to pay land revenue to the State Government and that occupant is a holder in actual possession who is other than a tenant or a Government lessee. To hold land or be a land holder or holder of land is defined to mean lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. Clearly enough the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust is the occupant of the land in contrast to a tenant which is defined to mean a lessee whether holding under an instrument or under an oral agreement but excludes a lessee directly holding under the State Government. Only in cases of default by persons who are primarily liable under this section, the land revenue including its arrears are recoverable under section 168(2) from the person in possession of land, provided where such person is a tenant the amount recoverable from him shall not exceed the demands of the year in which the recovery is made. Similarly under section 126 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the tenure holder is made responsible for payment of land revenue in respect of the tenure holder's holding. Similarly under section 126 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the tenure holder is made responsible for payment of land revenue in respect of the tenure holder's holding. Therefore, the State Government was fully justified in proceeding against the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust for recovery of land revenue in the shape of non-agricultural assessment. As a matter of fact in making recovery by the State Government, the petitioners or their members are in no way concerned. 10. What now remains is the defence raised by the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust that as per Clause 1(b) of the indenture of lease, the petitioner or its members have specifically agreed for payment of rates, taxes, charges and assessments of every description imposed upon the land demised to them. Therefore, it is the liability of the plot holder to pay the non-agricultural assessment. Even this submission is liable to be discarded. It is firstly for the reason that no one much less the petitioner or its members were ever called upon to pay land revenue even at the rate prescribed for agricultural use and which must have been paid by the Nagpur Improvement Trust for years and years. This clearly showed that Clause 1(b) did not include payment of land revenue by the lessees of the plots held by them, and that would be also in consonance with Rule 9 of the Land Disposal Rules, 1955. The other reason would be that if Clause 1(b) is interpreted to include even land revenue, then such a clause would be against Rule 9, which provides that the land revenue of the plots transferred to the lessees is made payable by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and no one else. The burden that is statutorily fixed under Rule 9 cannot be shifted to others as is sought to be done by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. There can be one more reason why the lessees cannot be held liable to pay. Procedure for assessment is fixed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners or their members had no notice about the fixation or assessment being undertaken. They could not participate in those proceedings. Even the Nagpur Improvement Trust failed to get proper fixation done. They took no interest in the proceedings. In these circumstances, no liability could even be fastened upon the lessees. The petitioners or their members had no notice about the fixation or assessment being undertaken. They could not participate in those proceedings. Even the Nagpur Improvement Trust failed to get proper fixation done. They took no interest in the proceedings. In these circumstances, no liability could even be fastened upon the lessees. It is thus clear that no recovery of non-agricultural assessment could be made by the Nagpur Improvement Trust from any of the plot holders, much less the petitioners or their members. The orders for recovery are hence not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. The respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust also contended that the State Government cannot claim the non-agricultural assessment from a retrospective date. This contention cannot be permitted to be agitated here as it is a subject-matter of a separate petition. Now that the liability to pay is found to be that of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, it is open for them to challenge the recovery from retrospective effect, in case the petition is found to be otherwise maintainable. 12. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned recovery notices are hereby quashed and set aside. The Nagpur Improvement Trust is further restrained from making recovery of the non-agricultural assessment (land revenue) from the plot holders like the petitioners or their members. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, the parties in each of the petitions are directed to bear their respective costs. Petitions allowed. -----