ACHYUT CHINUBHAI Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ard learned Counsel. This Special Civil Application has been filed against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by the petitioners with the prayers as under :-

(2.) The petitioners claim that they had valuable properties inherited by them near the Ahmedabad Railway Station on the Saraspur side. These properties were popularly known as "Madhubhai Mill Compound" or M. R. Colony. The petitioners own various properties of S. Nos. 125/P, 128/P, 129/P, 132/P, 133/P, 134/P and 135/P of Final Plot No. 101 of T. P. Scheme No. 16. On the land in question, originally there was a Textile Mill popularly known as Madhubhai Mill owned by the Ahmedabad Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. On liquidation of the said Company, the land with superstructures were purchased by Sir Chinubhai Madhavalal, Second Baronet who was the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, that there had been partition from time to time and some portion of the land was acquired in acquisition proceedings but ultimately the petitioners were the owners of land bearing approximately 40,475 sq. yds. It is also the case of the petitioners that there were several superstructures and most of them were rented out. The total area of the built-up superstructures was about 20,000 sq. yds. All these properties had been let out in or about the year 1940 by the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 and those tenants continued to occupy the premises since then, that the rents fixed are extremely low compared to their market value at the relevant time but in view of the restrictive tenancy laws, it was impossible for the petitioners to realise any increase in the rent of the property. In respect of this property when the tax was assessed, it was found to be in excess of the rental value. It has been stated that tax was the liability of the tenant and the tenants were directly receiving the Municipal tax bills and paying the same. To illustrate, it has been stated that the property which was known as N. S. Mills carried the annual rent of Rs. 10,530/- whereas the Municipal tax and education cess in respect of the said property was assessed at Rs. 18,543.64 Ps. That with the increase in the tax the tenants started defaulting. However, the tax was not paid either by the tenant or the owner. When the taxes fell in arrears notices were issued by the Municipal Corporation for payment of arrears etc. It has been then stated that in the meanwhile certain other properties of the petitioners were sought to be acquired and acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the land of the petitioners for the Municipal Corporation. While referring to an application dated 2-4-1981, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure "A" it has been stated that the petitioners had made representation to the Municipal Corporation to recover the amount of taxes allegedly due, from the amount which was to be received as compensation by the petitioners as a result of acquisition of their lands after giving proper receipts to them so that they in turn can recover the amount from the tenants. Ultimately, the Municipal Corporation put the entire built-up properties to auction sale proposed to be held on 23-6-1983 with regard to 20,000 sq. yds. It is then stated by the petitioners that there were no bidders at all at the auction and the respondent made an offer to itself for the purchase of these properties for a token sum of Re. 1/- only and thus the property with built-up area of 20,000 sq. yds. was purchased by the Municipal Corporation in the alleged auction sale on a token amount of Re. 1/- per property and subsequent steps were taken and the alleged sale was confirmed by the respondent-Corporation in its own favour. It is also the case of the petitioners that on the date of the alleged auction sale the alleged arrears were about Rs. 60,000.00 to Rs. 70,000.00 only whereas the properties were worth several lakhs. Whereas the petitioners were denying their liability to pay the tax dues, there was no question of petitioners purchasing that property from this auction sale. Besides, the petitioners had made the offer that the amount of arrears of taxes may be recovered from the compensation to be received from acquisition of the land of the petitioners on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. The grievance has been raised that even this offer was not accepted and the respondent-Corporation arbitrarily proceeded to auction the property and in the process brought about a situation in which, on one hand the petitioners were deprived of their valuable property and on the other hand, the Corporation had not been able to recover its alleged dues in full.

(3.) It has been stated in para 10 of the petition that they had adopted just and fair approach inasmuch as with regard to the property of the petitioners, which had been acquired as per the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1997, the petitioners were likely to get compensation of Rs. 2,35,000.00 and the petitioners had also made an offer that the dues of the tax may be appropriated against the said amount but the same was not accepted. It has also been stated that the respondent-Corporation has still not paid this amount which is due as compensation with regard to the land, which was acquired way back in the year 1962. The petitioners go on to state that though possessed of valuable properties, they had no liquid fund because their properties had been the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings and further that they had also received the notices of the Income-tax Department for recovery of their tax dues by sale of their properties. It has also been stated that the proceedings of the auction sale alleged to have taken place on 23-6-1983 were illegal, without jurisdiction and were conducted arbitrarily and in contravention of the Rules, that adequate public notice of the sale was not given resulting into no offers being received at all for the valuable property. No upset price for the sale of these properties was fixed and without making proper endeavour of getting fresh offers when no offer came forward, the respondent-Corporation arbitrarily and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution sold to itself the properties, which it had set out to illegal auction. That the Municipal Corporation did not take any measures like disconnecting water supply to bring home to the concerned persons, the gravity of the situation, which would have forced the tenants to clear up the arrears and the need to hold the auction could have been avoided.