JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners purchased plots measuring 110 X 80 ft. and 80 X 40 ft. situated in Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara. The property where the plots are situated is known as Duduwala & Company. The plots were purchased by registered sale deed dated 4.2.1994 and 8.2.1994 respectively. Respondent No. 3 sent a notice to the petitioners on 13.1.1995 under Section 11(1) of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1964") and has valued the property of the petitioners on 1.4.1994 at Rs. 9,78,900/- and 3,82,500/- respectively and has issued a show cause notice dated 13.1.1995 to the petitioners as to why not a penalty under Section 16-A(1)(a) of the Act of 1964 was not imposed. Another notice was issued on 25.1.1995 by the respondent No. 3 demanding Rs. 6789/- and Rs. 912.50 respectively yearly tax along with a penalty of Rs. 200/- and 100/- respectively because calculation of the property of the petitioners was done at Rs. 9,78,900/- and 3,82,500/- respectively. The above assessment was calculated as per the market value of the property of the petitioners. The assessment order Anx. 4 is dated 10.2.1995. It was also proposed to the petitioners that if they wanted to deposit one time tax they may deposit ten times of the tax mentioned in Anx. 3. Consequently the petitioners vide Anx. 6 has deposited Rs. 6789/- and Rs. 912.50 respectively as one time tax. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 issued a green card Anx. 7 to the petitioners. 3. On 6.11.1996 respondent No. 3 sent a notice to the petitioners to inquire whether the use of land was changed or any construction has been made over it. Similarly, Municipal Council, Bhilwara was also sent a letter as to whether use of land in question has been changed or any construction was made over it. Though there was no evidence with the respondents that use of the land has been changed or the same has been put to commercial use, yet vide Anx. 10 dated 20.5.1997 the valuation of the plots in question was calculated as per commercial rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and the proposed market value of the land was assessed as Rs. 35,20,000/- and 12,80,000/- respectively and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners vide Anx. 10. 10 dated 20.5.1997 the valuation of the plots in question was calculated as per commercial rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and the proposed market value of the land was assessed as Rs. 35,20,000/- and 12,80,000/- respectively and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners vide Anx. 10. Though the petitioners appeared before the respondents, however, vide Anx. 11 an amended assessment order dated 3.7.1997 was issued by which petitioner were directed to deposit Rs. 44,300/- and 10,700/- respectively as annual tax which was at the commercial rate. Against the order Anx. 11 the petitioners filed appeal before the Director, Land and Building, Rajasthan, Jaipur which was dismissed vide Anx. 14 dated 20.1.1998. A revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer vide Anx. 17 dated 11.1.2002. Hence these petitions. 4. Under Section 15-B of the Act of 1964 the assessing authority if has reason to believe that for any reason any land or building has escaped assessment or has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed or if the use of the land or building is changed, he may after following such procedure as has been prescribed proceed to assess or reassess such land or building. In the matters at hand when once the land in question has been assessed on the residential rate and one time tax has been deposited and green card Anx. 7 has been issued, then unless and until it has come to the knowledge of the assessing authority that the land in question has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed or that the use of land and building is changed, the land in question could not have been assessed at the commercial rate. Not an iota of fact is mentioned that the use of land in question has been changed or the assessment has been made wrongly or incorrectly. Simply because the petitioners have deposited ten times of the annual tax as assessed by the respondent No. 3, that by itself was not sufficient to hold that the land in question was commercial land. According to Anx. 6 if the property is residential property only eight times of the annual tax has to be deposited in one time scheme whereas for the commercial properties ten times of the annual tax has to be deposited. According to Anx. 6 if the property is residential property only eight times of the annual tax has to be deposited in one time scheme whereas for the commercial properties ten times of the annual tax has to be deposited. Inadvertently or for the reasons best known to the petitioners they deposited ten times of the annual tax which was detected by the auditors of the respondents that perhaps the property was commercial one as the petitioners should have deposited eight times of the annual tax. When time and again the petitioners have submitted before the authorities below that the land in question was not purchased as commercial land neither the same has been put to use as a commercial land. No building till date has been constructed over it. The respondents had no right to assess the land in question at the commercial rate. There is not an iota of evidence that the land in question is situated in the vicinity of commercial complexes. According to the sale deed Anx. 1 in Writ Petition No. 816/02 though the road is on the three sides of the plot in question, however, they were breadth 20 ft. towards East and West whereas on the northern side there is Trilok Marg whose breadth is not mentioned. Unless and until there were sufficient reasons before the authorities below to come to the conclusion that the land was a commercial land or that the use of the land has been changed from residential to commercial, the land could not have been assessed at the commercial rate. 5. Consequently, there is merit in these petitions. The same stand accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. As and when the petitioners put the land to commercial use, the respondents are at liberty to charge at the commercial rate.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Orders Question. *******