SALEEM MANSOORI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the occupants of shops situated in Chitranjan Ward at raddi Chowki, Jabalpur as tenants. The shops are owned by respondent No. 3, who owes the liability to pay property tax to the respondent Municipal corporation, Jabalpur which is not paid by him since 1997-98 to 2006-07 which has accumulated to Rs. 53,263/ -. The respondent Corporation in order to recover the said amount and in exercise of its power under the M. P. Municipal corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'act of 1956') issued a notice on 10-3-2008 Annexure P-l indicating therein that the shops would be attached and a lock would be put to ensure recovery of the property tax due thereon. In pursuant thereof the shops were locked on 15-3-2008 and given in supurdanama to respondent No. 3 on 15-3-2008, Annexure R-l/5. The locks were, however, directed to be opened by interim order dated 8-4-2008 passed by this Court.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it is beyond the powers of the respondent Corporation to effect recovery of dues towards property tax by putting lock on a shop wherein the petitioners are in occupation as tenants. Reliance is placed on the provisions contained under sections 134 and Section 141 of the Act of 1956. It is urged that Section 134 though empowers the Municipal Corporation to recover tax by one or more of the processes stipulated therein, i. e. , by presenting a bill; by serving a written notice of demand; by distraint and sale of movable property of the person concerned; by attachment and sale of his immovable property; in the case of octroi and toll, by the attachment and sale of goods and vehicles; in the case of property tax, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the property or by filing a suit. It is contended that the property tax, if it is to be recovered from an occupant who happens to be a tenant can be recovered only by attaching the rent due in respect of the property and by no other mode and certainly not by putting a lock over the property/shops occupied by the petitioners as tenant. It is further contended that the foremost liability to pay the property tax is of the owner under Section 141 (1) of the Act of 1956 and though sub-section (2) of Section 141 empowers the authorities of the respondent-Corporation to recover the property tax charged and levied on the owner may also be recovered from any occupier of the land or building under the circumstances, but the same has to be in accordance with process as it prescribed under Section 134 of the Act of 1956. It is averred that since the petitioners are tenants in occupation, the only recourse with the respondent Municipal Corporation to recover the amount due towards property tax by attaching the rent due in respect of said property and not by putting lock over the said property. It is accordingly contended that the action initiated by the respondent-Corporation is de hors the powers vested on them under the Act of 1956.

(3.) THE respondent-Corporation on its turn, however, supports the action initiated to recover the property tax charged and levied on the property belonging to respondent No. 3 and it is contended that the property tax is a tax that the Municipal Corporation is empowered to impose under Section 132 (1) (a) of the Act of 1956. Section 134 of the Act provides for different processes, resort can be had one for recovery of the property tax. Sub-section (2) of Section 141 empowers the Municipal Corporation to recover the property tax from any occupier of the land or building. It is further contended that Section 147 provides that if a person is dissatisfied with the valuation of property tax, he may prefer an objection to the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall deal with the objection under Section 148. Section 149 of the Act provides for filing of an appeal to the District Court in case a dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or the principle of assessment for the amount of tax assessed. The learned Counsel for the respondents, therefore, contends that the action as taken by authorities of Municipal Corporation cannot be found fault with, the same being in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1956.