ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Considering the scope of controversy the petition is taken up for final disposal today. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate for respondent No.3 authority are directed to waive service for respective respondents. 2. The petitioner Co-operative Society is challenging notification No.masal/jaman/ jahernamu/v. 1783 dated 17.05.2008 issued by District Development Officer whereby the village of the petitioner-Society has been classified to fall under Class 'A', as being contrary to provisions of Section 81 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (the Rules). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned notice dated 15.04.2008 and letter dated 24.04.2008 are bad in law and so is the notification (order) dated 17.05.2008 issued by District Panchayat categorizing Village Ghuma within Class 'A' as against Class 'C'. That the land of the petitioner-Society falls within an area which is beyond the City of Ahmedabad as well as the area of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA). Rule 81 of the Rules provides for determining the rates of non-agricultural assessment on the basis of the classification stipulated therein. According to learned advocate, admittedly, AUDA and its area has been included in Rule 81 of the Rules by amendment carried out vide notification dated 26.12.2003 and, therefore, prior thereto there would be no occasion for the respondent authority to classify Village Ghuma in Class 'A' for levy of non-agricultural assessment. 4. Upon notice being issued respondent has contested the petition by tendering affidavit-in-reply dated 19.06.2009 filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that on comparison of all the villages of Taluka Daskroi, namely, 37 villages, two villages, namely, Bopal and Ghuma are the fastest developing residential areas and, therefore, the property in question was rightly assessed as falling within Class 'A'. That considering the area of land held by the petitioner-Society the bill has been issued at the rate applicable to area falling within Class 'A'. It is not exorbitant as alleged by the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 authority vehemently submitted, after inviting attention to the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, that assessment has to be in consonance with the development of the area and the respondent authority had rightly, after considering the development and the future potentiality of development, assessed the land of the petitioner-Society. 5. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 authority vehemently submitted, after inviting attention to the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, that assessment has to be in consonance with the development of the area and the respondent authority had rightly, after considering the development and the future potentiality of development, assessed the land of the petitioner-Society. 5. Even as per amendment in Rule 81 w.e.f. 26.12.2003 a village covered by the limits of City of Ahmedabad as well as AUDA would fall within Class 'A'. The rules have thereafter been amended vide notification dated 21.06.2007 reducing the rates from the rates specified in the earlier notification dated 26.12.2003. Admittedly, Village Ghuma has been shown in Class 'A' vide order issued by the District Development Officer on 17.05.2008. Village Ghuma has been included within limit of AUDA w.e.f. 13.02.2009 as per notification issued by the State Government through its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department. Hence, the notification (order) dated 17.05.2008 cannot be made effective prior to 13.02.2009. 6. In the circumstances, admittedly, the notices and communication dated 15.04.2008 and 24.04.2008 cannot be upheld. It is necessary to note that vide certificate issued on 13.04.2008 the population of Village Ghuma as per census of 2001 is 4371. Accordingly, impugned notices dated 15.04.2008 and 24.04.2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Respondent No.3 authority shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the legal position set out hereinbefore. Till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent authority, the petitioner-Society shall continue to make payment at the old rates without waiting for a fresh bill to be issued. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.