MANZOOR Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 28-12-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar on an appeal purporting to be under Section 18 of the U. P. Town Areas Act whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed an appeal filed by the respondent and directed that the name of the appellant-respondent No. 4 Bundu be recorded on the house in ques tion and the property tax be realised from him.

(2.) 1 have heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. D. Khare, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. The other respondents have not appeared.

(3.) THE U. P. Town Areas Act does not contain any provision for the settlement of title disputes between the contesting house owners. What the Act contemplates is the levy of municipal taxes on persons found liable for the payment thereof. Under Section 15 the Town Area Commit tee has to prepare a list of the persons liable to pay the tax imposed under Sec tion 15. An assessment under Section 15 was made on Manzoor, the present petitioner who claims to be the owner of the house. Under sub-section (4) of Sec tion 15 an assessment, when confirmed by the District Magistrate shall not be subject to alteration except upon revision of the assessment list under sub-section (2) or in pursuance of an order passed in appeal under the provisions of Section 18. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner con tended that the tax having been lavied on the petitioner and the same having not been subjected to any appeal under Section 18, no change could be made and the. application of Bundu was rightly rejected and the consequent appeal preferred by Bundu, Respondent No: 4 did not lie under Section 18 as the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was not an order of assessment. Further it was con tended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the entry should continue till the decision of the dispute between the parties by a civil Court, was a just order and there was no justification for the appellate authority to set aside the same and ordering that the name of the Respondent No. 4 be recorded. THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand re-asserted the respondents' case and contended that the Respondent No. 4 was the real owner of the house and the impugned order should not be disturbed particularly be cause a suit between the parties about the I i tie of the house is already pending.