NIRU KUWAR Vs. MEDININAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 993 dated 09.03.2018 in terms of which the petitioner has been informed that the mutation being SAF No. 32803130117010417 and the holding of the petitioner's property has been cancelled.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under old Ward No. 12 (new Ward No. 03) Holding No. 377, total area 0.15 acre of Mohalla-Hamidganj was recorded in the name of Ramdesh Ram i.e., the father of the husband of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after the death of Ramdesh Ram, the said land came in possession of his wife Sita Kuiwar and sons Bhagwan Das and Shankar Ram (husband of the petitioner). Sita Kuiwar also died and the property was partitioned between Bhagwan Das and Shankar Ram. After the death of Shankar Ram, the petitioner alongwith her children came in possession of the said land alongwith the house constructed over it. She filed an application dated 03.10.2013 and 30.01.2014 before the respondent no. 2-Executive Officer, Medininagar Municipal Corporation, Medininagar for mutation (namantran) in municipal corporation holding register for depositing holding tax of the land and accordingly, name of the petitioner was mutated and the holding tax receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2017. Suddenly, the respondent no. 2 issued memo no. 372 dated 24.01.2018, alleging that the petitioner had fill-up SAF form, but had not enclosed any document of the land and thus, she was directed to submit the documents of the land within 3 days. Thereafter, another notice was issued vide memo no. 635 dated 16.02018, whereupon the petitioner filed an application dated 21.02018 before the respondent no. 2 mentioning that all the relevant documents of the land were produced on 002018 and 03.10.2013. However, she sought further time for submitting original documents. The daughter of the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking reasons as to why the holding tax is not being collected from her mother. However, no satisfactory reply was given by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already submitted the documents alongwith her applications for mutation of the property in the holding register and no objection was raised by any person. However, the mutation of the land has now been cancelled without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the decision as communicated to the petitioner in terms with the letter dated 09.02018 is in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner. It is also submitted that long running demand of the petitioner and her ancestors cannot be cancelled in summary trial without following the procedure of law.