RASHMI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 1.10.2004 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Katni in Misc. Civil Appeal No.45/2003, whereby the appeal filed by the applicants under section 149 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the proposed recovery of property tax of Rs.81,600/- has been dismissed.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the applicants are residing in house No.28 to 28/13, Hanumanganj Ward, Katni. They were assessed to tax and thereafter on 12.6.2001 a notice under section 146 of the Act, proposing to recover the tax of Rs.81,600/-, was issued to them. The applicants filed an objection whereafter the non-applicant Corporation again issued a notice for recovering the tax on 13.12.1991 after rejecting the objections in their own records without informing the applicants. The applicants thereafter filed an application seeking certified copy of the order of assessment as well as the order rejecting the representation/objection, but they were not supplied to them. As the respondents sought to proceed with the recovery, the applicants filed an appeal under section 149(2) of the Act, against the proposed assessment and recovery which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.10.2004.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondent was required to give a notice as well as personal hearing to the applicants prior to assessment as prescribed under sections 144 and 145 of the Act, after giving an opportunity to the applicants to submit their objections. It is submitted that the respondents were also required to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and take into consideration the various parameters prescribed by law and the judgments of this Court namely, determination of the standard rent by taking into consideration reasonable rent that a tenant would pay for the premises; rent prevailing in the locality; the property tax of similarly situated properties assessed by the respondent; the nature and status of the construction; the use for which the construction was being put to and other factors. It is submitted that the respondent was thereafter required to pass a reasoned order of assessment and communicate the same to the applicants and it was only thereafter, in case the applicants failed to pay the tax that a notice under section 146 of the Act, seeking recovery of the excess tax could have been issued. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have not followed the aforesaid procedure statutorily prescribed by law and in such circumstances the entire procedure for assessment of tax is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the respondent, inspite of repeated requests by the applicants, did not supply a copy of the order of assessment or a copy of the order rejecting the applicants' objection to the assessment and have, therefore, acted in an arbitrary manner.