A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by respondent No. 2 firstly on 6th August 1984 and subsequently on 13th September 1984 as affirmed in revision by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 by the order passed on 31st March 1986 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order passed on 6th August 1984 respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 432/- and the local fund cess for starting construction without his permission. By his impugned order passed on 13th September 1984 respondent No. 2 granted permission to the petitioners for non-agricultural use of lands bearing survey Nos. 213 and 214 on payment at the rate of 6 paise per square metre with effect from 1st August 1976. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioner No. 1 is a company duly registered under the relevant company legislation (the Company for convenience ). Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and is also its Chairman and Managing Director. The Company is engaged in manufacture of several chemical items. It possesses several parcles of land admeasuring more than 800 acres. Its holding includes survey Nos. 213 and 214. They were not converted for non-agricultural use. The Company wanted to raise its Dinitro Chloro Benzene Plant (the Plant for convenience) on some part of the aforesaid two parcels of land. According to the petitioners no permission for non-agricultural use of the aforesaid parcels of land was necessary. However the Company applied for construction of its Plant to respondent No. 2. It appears that initially such permission was refused inter alia on the ground that the construction activity was already started before obtaining such permission. The revisional authority however remanded the matter to respondent No. 2 for passing orders for regularisation of construction on levying appropriate penalty. Thereupon by his order passed on 6th August 1984 respondent No. 2 regularised the construction by levying penalty in the sum of Rs. 432/- and the local fund cess. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The petitioners have challenged this order in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereupon by his order passed on 6th August 1984 respondent No. 2 regularised the construction by levying penalty in the sum of Rs. 432/- and the local fund cess. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The petitioners have challenged this order in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Coming back to the narration of facts by his order passed on 13th September 1984 respondent No. 2 permitted the Company to make non-agricultural use of survey Nos. 213 and 214 for the purpose of raising its Plant in question on payment at the rate of 6 paise per square metre. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The Company carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 31 March 1986 the revisional application came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure-A to this petition. ( 3 ) SO far as the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-F to this petition is concerned I do not think it calls for any interference by this Court for the simple reason that the amount involved is very small. The penalty imposed is in the sum of Rs. 432/- and the applicable local fund cess. For a company like petitioner No. 1 no useful purpose will be served even if it is not set aside on finding it illegal or invalid. I have therefore not chosen to examine the merits of that order. ( 4 ) BEFORE examining the legality and validity of the impugned order at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure-A to this petition is concerned it would be quite proper to look at Rule 81 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 (the Rules for brief) framed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (the Code for brief ). Thereunder areas have been classified in five different categories for the purpose of Cause (a) of Sub-rule (1) thereof. Thereunder areas have been classified in five different categories for the purpose of Cause (a) of Sub-rule (1) thereof. The area specified in Class-D would be towns and villages with a population of more than 5000 and upto 10000 inclusive of the population of area falling under Clause (ii) of Class-B within those towns and villages. So far as the village involved in this petition is concerned it would fall within the purview of Class-D as aforesaid. The total population according to the census undertaken in 1981 as transpiring from the document at Annexure-D to this petition was 5622. In that view of the matter as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Rules non-agricultural assessment ought to have been levied on the basis of the rates applicable to Class-D towns and/or villages. It appears from the impugned order at Annexure-B to this petition that the non-agricultural assessment levied is made on the footing that the village in question would fall in Class-B occurring in Sub-clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rules. Class-B comprises of two kinds of areas. One category of area would consist of cities and towns other than those in Class-A and having a population exceeding 50000. The second category would comprise of such industrial and allied areas as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government from time to time irrespective of the population in such area. As transpiring from the document at Annexure-D to this petition the population of the concerned village was 5622. It is certainly below 50000. It would not fall within the area specified in Class-B (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rules. It is an admitted position on record that no notification has been issued by the State Government notifying the village of Atul for the purpose of its inclusion in Class-B (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rules. If neither condition for applicability of Class-B is found satisfied no non-agricultural assessment levy can be imposed at the rate applicable to Class-B area. The non-agricultural assessment to be levied would be in accordance with the area falling within Class-D in accordance with the rate prescribed by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Rules as amended from time to time. The non-agricultural assessment to be levied would be in accordance with the area falling within Class-D in accordance with the rate prescribed by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Rules as amended from time to time. Since the impugned order at Annexure-B to this petition has levied the non-agricultural assessment at the rate applicable to the area falling within Class-B of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 81 of the Rules it cannot be sustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside. It is obvious that the consequential demands contained in the letter at Annexure-I to this petition and the notice at Annexure-J to this petition will have also to be quashed and set aside. The matter will have to be remanded to respondent No. 2 for restoration of the proceedings to file and for his fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is accepted. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 on 13th September 1984 at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 31st March 1986 at Annexure-A to this petition as also the consequential demand contained in the letter at Annexure-I to this petition and in the notice at Annexure-J to this petition are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 for restoration of the proceedings to file and for his fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition Accepted Accordingly. .