MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. SHAIKH MOHAMMEDSHAIKH YUSUFSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal, filed by the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1982, passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 919/1972, which is confirmed by learned Assistant Judge, Aurangabad by his judgment and order dated 10-7-1984, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 156/1983.

(2.) THE respondent owns Municipal houses No. 2-13-5 and 2-13-6, situated at Kelibazar, Aurangabad. The appellant Municipal Council, Aurangabad issued bills No. 88 and 89, dated 30-9-1972 in respect of these two houses, claiming consolidated property tax of Rs. 441/- and 663. 90 for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The respondent brought a suit stating that the imposition of tax was exorbitant, unreasonable and that the procedure laid down under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was not followed; no assessment list was prepared and that there was no authentication of the list by authorised valuation officer; the procedure laid down under Sections 112 to 124 was not followed and, therefore, the bills of demand were not in conformity with Section 150 of the Act. The respondent/original plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit, seeking declaration and injunction against the present appellant/municipal Council from collecting the tax on the basis of the said bills.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by Municipal Council, present appellant. It was stated by Municipal Council that the rules were duly published under Section 112 of the Act; the list was duly published and the list was prepared under Section 124 of the Act, which was valid for four years. Fresh authentication under Sections 121 and 122, according to the original defendant/municipal Council was not required for each year. In short, it was denied that the procedure for assessment of tax was not followed. Apart from this, the maintainability of the suit was questioned firstly on the ground that the notice, as required under Section 304 of the Act, was not served on the original defendant/municipal Council and finally it was stated that Section 169 of the Act provides for appeal against the claim for taxes and bills presented to any person under Section 150 of the Act; the assessment of tax was done in good faith and, therefore, civil suit was not maintainable on account of specific bar provided under Section 172 of the Act.