DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 8/2001, whereby learned Additional District Judge by affirming the order dated 14-8-2001 passed by Municipal Corporation, Raipur relating to imposition of property tax had dismissed the miscellaneous appeal.

(2.) LEGALITY & propriety of the order impugned is challenged on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submits that Municipal Corporation, Raipur has not followed the procedure prescribed and has not considered mother of the applicants and also owner of the property, after separating her share, the Municipal Corporation was required to assess property tax, but they have not considered the same and committed illegality, and thereby caused prejudice to the present applicants. LEARNED Counsel placed reliance in the matter Indore Municipal Corporation v. Chhaganlal 1986 (II) MPWN 8, in which it has been held by the M.P. High Court that in absence of division of property by metes and bounds, property tax separately payable by each share-holder is entitled for benefit under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). LEARNED Counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Indore and Ors. v. Smt. Ratnaprabha Dhanda, Indore and Anr. 1989 MPLJ 20 in which it has been held by Division Bench of the M.P. High Court that annual letting value of a building cannot exceed the upper limit of standard rent, where the standard rent is not fixed, the Assessing Authority has to arrive at the annual letting value in accordance with Sections 7 and 10 of the Rent Act. LEARNED Counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Devan Daulat Rai Kapooretc. etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr. etc. etc. : AIR 1980 SC 541, in which the Apex Court has held that if the building is governed by Rent Control Legislation, annual value cannot exceed standard rent.