MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE Vs. HAKIM MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the Municipal Corporation directed against the order dated 9 -2 -87 passed by the VII Additional Judge to the Court f the District Judge, Indore in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 248/82 whereby the learned Addl. Judge has allowed the appeal of the Respondent -Assessee house -owner and set aside the order of the Special Assessment Officer of the Corporation imposing property tax of Rs. 356.40 in respect of House No. 50, Bohra Bazar, Indore. Facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows: - By an order dated 7th April, 1982 passed by the VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 27/81 under Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the order of assessment dated 26 -12 -80 made by the Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh assessment in the light of the directions made in that order. Thereafter, a notice No. 356 dated 9 -8 -82 for reassessment under Section 146 of the Act was issued to the Respondent house -owner and the Respondent filed his objection on 13 -9 -82. The Assistant Assessment Officer dismissed the objection of the Respondent on the ground that it was received after expiry of 30 days as specified in the notice under Section 146 of the Act for filing objection. As a result of rejection of the Respondent's objection the proposed assessment became final. The Respondent -Assessee filed an appeal against the decision of the Assessing Authority before the District Court. The appeal has been allowed by the learned VI Ith Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in favour of the Assessee. The applicant -Corporation has, therefore, filed this revision. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the Assessee's appeal was directed against the order rejecting his objection to the assessment on the ground of limitation and the learned lower appellate Court had committed an error in treating and deciding the appeal as one directed against the decision on merits. The provision of Section 149 of the Act enables filing of an appeal from the decision of the Municipal Commissioner on the question of liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to the amount of tax assessed, if any dispute arises in that behalf. Section 149 of the Act requires the person dissatisfied with the proposed valuation of the annual value for the assessment of the properly tax to file an objection before the date fixed in this behalf in the notice under Section 145 or Section 146 of the Act. Section 148 of the Act envisages investigation and determination of the objection by Commissioner after hearing the objection

(2.) THUS , the scheme of provisions of Section 147, 148 and 149 of the Act contemplate filing of appeal to the District Court under Section 149 only after going through the procedure of filing objection and its determination under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. Sub -section (4) of Section 149 even provides, that no appeal shall be admitted under that section unless an objection has been preferred under Section 148. If the house owner's objection is rejected by the Commissioner, the proposed valuation becomes the final decision of the Commissioner. Therefore, it the house -owner is aggrieved by the valuation, he must be held entitled to file an appeal under Section 149 within 30 days from the cate of the order passed under Section 148 of the Act. In the instant case the Commissioner has rejected the objection on the ground that it was filed after the date fixed in that behalf in the notice under Section 146 of the Act. In my opinion, this rejection on the ground of limitation is also referable to Section 148 and is, therefore, an order which the Commissioner has passed on the objection under Section 148 of the Act which alone empowers the Commissioner to decide the objection. The rejection of the objection to the assessment amounts to deciding that the proposed assessment is proper As such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Assessee's appeal was directed against the rejection of his objection and not against the decision of the Commissioner on the question of assessment on merits, has no force and must be rejected. In the scheme of the provisions contained in Section 146 to 149 of the Act, the proposed assessment attains finality so as to amount to a decision of the Commissioner on the question of assessment on merits only after rejection of the objection preferred by the house -owner even if the rejection is on the ground of limitation or any other technical plea. As such, the rejection of the objection gives rise to a right of appeal under Section 149 of the Act against the decision on the question of assessment on merits. The order rejecting the objection to the assessment amounts to decision of the Municipal Commissioner on the question of assessment and is appealable as such under Section 149 of the Act. The learned lower appellate Court has accepted the contention of the house -owner Assessee that in the absence of any special ground in the notice under Section 146 of the Act, the previous tax could not be enhanced. A perusal of the notice dated 9 -8 -1982 shows that it does not contain a statement of grounds of the proposed increase in valuation, as is the mandatory requirement under Section 146 of the Act. The view taken by the learned Lower Appellate Court appears to be proper in the circumstances and does not call for any interference in this revision. In the result, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this revision.