JUDGMENT P.S. Patankar, J.
1. The learned Single Judge felt that what has been held by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Rambhai Laxminarayan Kothari v. Municipal Commissioner and Ors., is not a good law in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Polychem Ltd., He further felt that the two other Judgments of the learned Single Judge reported in Ramakant Madhusudan Tipnis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Polychem (cited supra) was not considered. Therefore, the following question came to be referred to the Division Bench for decision :-
"When admittedly the structures in relatton to which property tax or general tax is being levied are unauthorised structures, in the sense that they have been constructed without getting building plans sanctioned by the Corporation and they have been occupying without Corporation issuing the occupation certificate be subjected to levy of property tax or general tax of the Corporation?"
'The appellants are lessors of structures, but those structures came to be unauthorisedly extended by the tenants. In fact, they carried such construction on open space which is compulsorily required to be kept open under the Building Rules. Therefore, the question is charging of general or property tax in respect of the said unauthorised structure of construction.
2. At the outset, we may note some of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act of 1888"). Section 3(r) under the Act of 1888 defines 'land' as under:-
"(r) "land" includes land which is being built upon or is built upon or covered with water, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth of permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by legislative enactment over any street".
Section 3(s) defines 'building' as under :-
"(s) "building" includes a house, outhouse, stable, shed, but tank (except tank for storage of drinking water in a building or part of a building) and every other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever."
Section 139 provides for Taxes that can be imposed by the Municipal Corporation and one of them is "property taxes".
Section 140 provides for what to consist of property taxes and at what rate leviable. It provides for water tax, sewerage tax, general tax etc.. The material part of Section 140 is as under :-
"140. Property taxes of what to consist and at what rate leviable.
(1) The following taxes shall be levied on buildings and lands in Brihan Mumbai and shall be called "property taxes", namely :-
(a)(i) the water tax of so many per centum of their rateable value, as the Standing Committee may consider necessary for providing water supply;
(ii) an additional water tax which shall be called the water benefit tax .....
(b) .....
General tax
(c) a general tax of not less than eight and not more than fifty per centum of their rateable value, together with not less than one-eighth and not more than five per centum of their rateable value added thereto in order to provide for the expense necessary for fulfilling the duties of the Corporation arising under Clause (k) of section 61 and Chapter XIV".
Section 143 provides for on what premises general tax to be levied. It provides that the general tax shall be levied In respect of all buildings and land in Greater Bombay with certain exceptions mentioned therein (with which we are not concerned).
Section 154 deals with rateable value how to be determined. The material part for our purpose is Section 154(1) and (2). It is as under :-
"154, Rateable value how to be determined. -
(1) In order to fix the rateable value of any building or land assessable to a property tax, there shall be deducted from the amount of the annual rent for which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year a sum equal to ten per centum of the said annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever.
(2) The value of any machinery contained or situate in or upon any building or land shall not be included in the rateable value of such building or land".
Section 155 gives power to the Commissioner to call for information or returns from owner or occupier or enter and inspect assessable premises to enable him to determine the rateable value of any building or land and the person primarily liable for payment of any property tax in respect thereof.
Section 174 provides for refund of the water tax and sewerage tax in certain circumstances. Similarly, Section 176 provides for refund not claimable unless notice of vacancy is given to the Commissioner Section 176(1) is as under :-
"176(1) No refund of any property tax claimable from the Commissioner, as aforesaid, unless notice In writing of the vacancy shall have been given by the person liable for the tax, or his agent, to the Commissioner".
Under Section 176(3), the vacancy required is atleast for one and a half year.
Section 337 provides that notice to be given by a party to the Commissioner of intention to erect a building.
Section 347 provides that a person may commence the work described in Section 342 by giving notice to the Commissioner and seek approval from him.
Section 348 makes provisions for erecting new building on complying with the provisions of law.
Section 351 provides for proceedings to be taken in respect of buildings or work commenced contrary to Section 347. It provides for giving of written notice to the party carrying out such construction and order demolition If sufficient cause is not shown. Section 351(1) is as under :-
"351 (1) If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in section 342, is commenced contrary to the provisions of section 32 or 347, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 354, shall -
(a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work, or has erected such building or executed such work, or who is the owner for the time being of such building or work, within seven days from the date of service of such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorized by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down; or Explanation - "To show sufficient cause" in this Sub-section shall mean to prove that the work mentioned in the said notice is carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 337 or 342 and Section 347 of the Act".
In case, he fails to show cause, then the Commissioner is given power to pull down the building or work and to recover the expenses thereof from such a person.
Section 471 provides for certain offences punishable with fine. One of them is for violating Section 347(1) and 353A.
Section 472 deals with continuing offences and provides that in case of violation of Section 347(1), the minimum fine that shall be imposed shall be Rs. 300/-. In case of Section 353A, it is Rs. 200/.
3. The other provisions relied upon are from the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter, referred to as M.R. & T.P. Act).
Section 52 provides for penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with Development Plan. It provides for punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to 3 years and with fine in case of violations mentioned therein. One of them is carrying out development without permission required under the Act. Section 53 gives power to the Planning Authority to require removal of unauthorised development after following the procedure mentioned therein.
Section 54 also gives power to the Planning Authority to stop unauthorised development being carried out by persons and provides for punishment and fine in case it is violated.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that various provisions of the Act make it clear that taxes can only be imposed by the Municipal Corporation on the buildings which are legally constructed and occupied and not on the buildings not legally built. He submitted that any other constructions of the provisions would do violence to them and also to the Judgments of the Apex Court. He submitted that if there is illegality in construction or it is unauthorised construction, then the Municipal Corporation is free to demolish it and even penalty can be imposed not only under the Act of 1888 but also under the M.R. & T.P. Act. He also submitted that merely because people may carry on illegal or unauthorised construction, if taxes are not allowed to be imposed by the Corporation on such structures, then it would amount to permitting the Municipal Corporation to do something which is not permitted by law. He strongly relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in support of his submission that for enabling the Corporation to impose property taxes on a building, it must be actually and legally capable of occupation. Per Contra - The learned Advocate for the Corporation submitted that for decades i.e. since beginning the Municipal Corporation is recovering property taxes even in respect of buildings which are illegally or unauthorisedly constructed. This is how the statute is understood by the officers, the Municipal Corporation and the public at large. Therefore, even assuming that there is any ambiguity in the provisions, the said view requires no disturbance. He submitted that the provisions of law make it clear that all buildings are liable for property tax and there is no difference between legally constructed and illegally or unauthorisedly constructed. He submitted that otherwise it would be inviting the public to have unauthorised construction if they are not liable for taxes as they may continue to use it for years. It would amount to a fraud on revenue as practically years would be consumed to take action against such constructions considering the legal process involved. He further submitted that imposition of fine or penalty are in addition and merely because the Municipal Corporation can ultimately demolish it and impose fine, It does not mean that property taxes cannot be imposed. He submitted that first the Apex Court was not considering the issue involved in these matters in . Further, the words used are to be construed as 'or' and not 'and' as there may be a structure which is occupied or it may not be actually occupied but in all respects legally constructed. Both are liable for property taxes. The words used are to be understood in this manner. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in has rightly considered the Apex Court Judgment In and taken the correct view.
5. The definition of "building" contained In Section 3(s) is inclusive and wide. It includes all structures. It makes no mention of authorisedly constructed or unauthorisedly constructed. The definition of "land" contained in Section 3(r) is also inclusive. It shows that wherever there is vacant land and land on which any construction is going on, it would be treated as "land". Thus the land can be divided in two categories. This shows that once the construction is complete and can be occupied, It falls in the category of building.
6. Chapter VIII deals with Municipal Taxation. Sections 140 to 145 thereof deal with property taxes leviable. Sections 146 to 148 deal with liability to pay property taxes. Sections 145 and 155 deal with how valuation of the property assessable to property tax is to be made. It is clear that Sections 140, 143, 154 and 155 use the words "buildings and/or land". No section or provision is pointed out which says that the building should be legally constructed or authorisedly constructed for the purpose of taxation.
7. It is clear that Sections 332, 342 347, 348 provide for making authorised or legal construction. They fall in Chapter XII dealing with Building Regulations. They go to show what are the requirements to be complied for having authorised or legal construction. Section 351 of that Chapter gives power to the Commissioner to demolish any authorised or illegal construction on giving notice. Section 353A gives power to the Commissioner to issue Completion Certificate and grant permission to occupy the building.
Sections 471 and 472 fall in Chapter XVIII dealing with penalties for violating the provisions of law as indicated therein such as making unauthorised construction. Similarly, the provisions of the M. R. & T. P. Act provide for penalties in case of unauthorised or illegal construction. In our opinion, the learned Counsel for the respondent is right in submitting that the demolition of an unauthorised construction or imposition of penalty are safeguards provided to see that there is no unauthorised or illegal construction made in the city as otherwise it may prove to be hazardous or dangerous to the public. But from that, it cannot be concluded that the Municipal Corporation cannot impose the property taxes on such illegal or unauthorised construction. If such constructions are held to be exempt from payment of property taxes, then it would be an open invitation to the people to have such construction as it may not be possible to demolish or penalise those making such construction for years in view of the legal process involved. Law has to take its own course. Further, it is well known that many a times such unauthorised structures are regularised after many years for one reason or the other. We find that there is no provision in the Act which exempts such construction from payment of property taxes. The property taxes are generally for all buildings and lands and unless it is shown that any such building or land is exempted from payment, it cannot be held that there is no liability to pay property taxes. In fact, Section 143 provides that generally the taxes shall be levied on all building and land in Greater Bombay and carves out specific exceptions. There is no such exception made in respect of illegal construction or unauthorised construction.
8. We shall now advert to the various Judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties and consider the effect thereof.
The main reliance of the learned Advocate for the appellants is on (cited supra). In the said case, the question for determination was whether the land on which the building is being constructed is taxable as land or land and building. It was held that so long as the building is not completed or constructed to such an extent that atleast a partial completion notice can be given so that the completed portion can be occupied and let, the land can, for the purpose of rating, be equated with or treated as vacant land. It was held that though the definition of 'land', which is rateable, covers three kinds of "land", yet for the purposes of rating Section 154 recognises only two categories. The first category is the vacant land and the land on which the construction is being carried out and the second one is the land on which the construction is completed. It is held that the land must fall in one of these categories for the purpose of rating and other otherwise. It was observed -
"Section 3(r) of the Act makes it clear that land which is being built upon is also "land". Hence, so long as a building is not completed or constructed to such an extent that atleast a partial completion notice can be given so that the completed portion can be occupied and let, the land can, for purposes of rating, be equated with or treated as vacant land. It is only when the building which is being put up is in such a state that it is actually and legally capable of occupation that the letting value of the building can enter into the computation for rating "Rebus sic stantious".
The question involved was upto what stage the land can be assessed as 'land' for property taxes. It is clear that when the building is complete so that it can actually be occupied or becomes legally capable of occupation, the property tax is leviable for the land and the building. Thus, the emphasis is when the building can be said to be complete so that it can be occupied and assessed. It is clear that the Apex Court, though was not specifically considering the imposition of general tax on building and was considering definition of land for the purpose of general tax, made the above observations. The use of the words "actually and legally capable of occupation" are used to indicate when the building is occupied or becomes capable for occupation and hence, liable for general tax. The word 'and' is to be construed as 'or'. If the building is actually occupied, then it is liable for general tax. Similarly, if the building is constructed and is legally capable of occupation, but in fact may not be occupied, even then it is liable for taxation. One can very well visualise that there may be a building authorisedly or unauthorisedly constructed, but actually occupied. Similarly, there may be a building complete and legally capable of occupation, but a person may not actually occupy It for years. Both these are liable for general tax. Such a person cannot say that I am not actually occupying the building and, therefore, not liable for general tax. He has to pay property taxes but may claim refund under Section 176(1) and (3). Therefore, what is material is the factum of actual occupation or where the structure is legally capable of occupation. In our opinion, such interpretation would not have the effect of doing any violence to the provisions of law or to the Judgment of the Apex Court as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondents is right in pointing out that the learned Single Judge of this Court in (cited supra) has considered the Judgment of the Apex Court and observed -
"It Is well settled law that even in case of unauthorised occupation the taxes are payable and the rateable value can be fixed. On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Polychem, In this case, it was a case of assessment of land under construction. This was not a case of assessment of building factually constructed and actually occupied. In my opinion, this case has no applicability whatsoever to the problem under consideration in this appeal".
In the said case, construction of the building was complete in July/ August 1975. All the flats in the building came to be occupied in December, 1975. The Municipal Corporation issued necessary Completion Certificate in respect of the said building on 10th March 1976. The question arose from what date the said building is liable for property tax? It was held that it will be liable from December 1975 i.e. the date on which It was actually occupied.
We find that before another learned Single of this Court In Ramakant Madhusudan Tipnis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, contention was raised that as the room was unauthorisedly constructed by the tenant of the land and therefore owner was not liable to pay property tax. It was held that in view of Section 146(2)(c), the owner of the land on which the unauthorised construction was made was primarily liable. For this, the learned Single Judge relied upon Division Bench Judgment/report of this Court Ramji Keshavji Contractor v. The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, to which we shall shortly refer. The contention raised on behalf of the owner of the land to escape liability that there can be no construction made on such a land as it was forbidden by the Rules of the municipality from the constructing anything on the land was also negatived. It was held that there is nothing in the definition of land contained in Section 3(r) to indicate that what is built upon must be building in accordance with the Rules of the Municipal Corporation or that it should be an authorised structure. The observations of the Supreme Court in the reported Judgment in are quoted, which are as follows:
"Therefore, the scheme of Section 146 is that when the land is let and the tenant has built upon the land, there should be a composite assessment of tax upon the land and building taken together. We are further of opinion that in the case of such a composite unit the primary liability of assessment of tax is intended to be on the lessor of the land under Section 146(2)(a) of the Act.. .....
........ In the context of Section 146(3) the lessor of the premises as mentioned in Section 140(2)(a) must be construed as to mean the lessor of the land on which the building has been constructed by the tenant. In this connection, reference should be made to Section 147 which provides for an apportionment of responsibility for property tax when the premises assessed are let or sub-let. The language of this Sub-section suggests that the lessor of the land has the right of recovering from his tenant the amount of tax which he has paid in excess of the tax which property is liable to pay on the basis of the rent recovered by the lessor. It is also clear that the intention of the Legislature in fixing the primary liability of property tax upon the owner of the land in a case not falling under Section 146(3) of the Act is to facilitate the collection of property tax. ......
........ It is not unreasonable therefore that in a case of this description the Legislature should impose the primary liability for the payment of the property tax upon the lessor of the land and to give him the right of recoupment under Section 147".
It was further observed that it must follow from the provisions that even if the land on which unauthorised construction is let, the principle of hypothetical landlord and hypothetical tenant must follow and the land and the building would constitute a composite unit for assessment.
In (cited supra) again the question arose when some trespassers built hutments on the land owned by M/s. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. and the Municipal Corporation levied property tax on it who is liable to pay. Again relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation/or Greater Bombay. and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 56 Bom.L.R..
1132 (cited supra) it was held that in view of Section 146(2)(c), the primary liability is that of the owner of the land to pay the property tax for such unauthorised construction.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants then relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kailash Nath and Associates and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court was considering the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The question which arose was regarding assessment to property tax of the 10th floor of the building. There was no completion and occupation certificate granted. There was also no actual occupation of the same. The learned single Judge considered the Judgment of the Apex Court , and against the factual background held -
"To my mind the guiding factor has to be a building which is fit for being occupied, both factually and in law before it can attract the incidence of tax. The issue of completion certificate or an occupation certificate is certainly a guiding factor, i cannot, however, agree that it is only after issue of occupation certificate or completion certificate that the incidence of tax is attracted. There have been cases and can be cases where a building is occupied even without taking a completion certificate. If that is the position it will certainly attract the incidence of tax because the very fact of occupation would establish that the building is fit for occupation".
'' (Underlining ours) In fact, this Judgment goes against the contention sought to be put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellants and supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in 56 Bom.L.R. 1132 (Justice M. C. Chagla, Chief Justice and Justice Shah) considered the primary liability of the owner/landlord where the tenant of the land himself builds a structure. The landlord had let out an open plot of land to a tenant for one year charging monthly rent and the tenant constructed upon the plot a temporary shed. The Bombay Municipal Corporation treated the land and the shed as a single assessable unit and fixed the rateable value and presented the bill to the landlord: The landlord contended that he was not primarily liable for payment of taxes for the shed constructed by the tenant. This contention came to be negatived by the Division Bench. Reference was made to Sections 147, 154, 155 and 156 of the Act and It was observed that "The object of these sections is to fix the rateable value and also to determine who is primarily liable. Therefore, if the primary liability under Sub-section 92 is upon the lessor where the premises are let, the information that would have to be gathered and the rateable value that will have to fixed would be with regard to the premises which would Include both the land and the building, if a building was constructed upon the land. It would be untenable to suggest, that under Sections 154, 155 and 156 the Municipality should assess land separately from the building. If the Municipality were to do that, then it would be impossible to fix the primary liability as far as the building is concerned. .......:
. . .. Therefore In bur opinion, the scheme of Section 146 and Sections 154, 155 and 156 clearly indicates that, when a land is let and the letting does not fall within the purview of Sub-section (3) of Section 146, and where the landlord is made primarily liable under Sub-section (2) of Section 146 the proper rateable unit is the land with the building standing thereon".
The Apex Court approved the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in . The Apex Court mainly construed the provisions of Section 146 and it was observed -
'Therefore, the Scheme of Section 146 is that when the land Is let and the tenant has built upon the land, there should be a composite assessment of tax upon the land and building taken together. We are further of opinion that in the case of such a composite unit the primary liability of assessment of tax is intended to be on the lessor of the land under Section 146(2)(a) of the Act. ..........
In the context of Section 146(3) the lessor of the premises as mentioned in Section 146(2)(a) must be construed as to mean the lessor of the land on which the building has been constructed by the tenant. In this connection, reference should be made to Section 146 which provides for an apportionment of responsibility for property tax when the premises assessed are let or sub-let. The language of this Sub-section suggests that the lessor of the land has the right of recovering from his tenant the amount of tax which he has paid in excess of the tax which the property is liable to pay on the basis of the rent recovered by the lessor. It is also clear that the intention of the Legislature in fixing the primary liability of property tax upon the owner of the land in a case not falling under Section 146(3) of the Act is to facilitate the collection of property tax. .........
It is not unreasonable therefore that in a case of this description the Legislature should impose the primary liability of or the payment of the property tax upon the lessor of the land and to give him the right of recoupment under Section 147".
Further observations of the Apex Court support the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Court may accept the construction which authorities have put upon it by their usage and conduct for a long period of time. In this respect, it was observed-
"In our opinion, the principle of contemporana expositi applies to the present case. The Act was passed in the year 1888 and there appears to be a practice followed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a very long time of treating the land and the building constructed upon it as single unit and charging the property tax upon the owner of the land in a case where the land is let for a period of less than one year to a tenant who has constructed a building thereon".
Precisely, in the present case there is no dispute that the Municipal Corporation is charging property tax in case of all buildings occupied by persons, and recovering the same from the owners of the land unless a case falls under Section 146(3).
12. The learned Counsel for the appellants then relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in The Corporation of Calcutta v. Padma Debi and Ors,. In the said case, the landlord was charging Rs. 1450 as rent. The Rent Controller had fixed the standard rent at Rs. 550 per month. On the basis of the actual rent charged, the annual rating was fixed by the Municipality. Contention was raised that the rating can be fixed only on the basis of the standard rent payable. The Apex Court considered Sections 127(a), 2(10)(b), 3 and 33(a) dealing with rating. Section 127(a) of the Act is as under :-
"The annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent, for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent."
In the light thereof, it is held -
"(6) The word "reasonably" in the section throws further light on this interpretation. The word "reasonably" is not capable of precise definition. "Reasonable" signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis, it is a question of fact. Whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. ................. An inflated or deflated rate of rent based upon fraud, emergency relationship, and such other considerations may take it out of the bounds of reasonableness. .........
.... .A combined reading of the said proviso leaves no room for doubt that a contract for a rent at a rate higher than the standard rent is not only not enforceable but also that the landlord would be committing an offence if he collected a rent above the rate of the standard rent. One may legitimately say under those circumstances that a landlord cannot reasonably be expected to let a building for a rent higher than the standard rent. A law of the land with its penal consequences cannot be ignored in ascertaining the reasonable expectations of a landlord in the matter of rent. In this view, the law of the land must necessarily be taken as one of the circumstances obtaining in the open market placing an upper limit on the rate of rent for which a building can reasonably be expected to let. .......
7. It is said thatSection 127(a) does not contemplate the actual rent received by a landlord but a hypothetical rent which he can reasonably be expected to receive if the building is let. ......... But an open market cannot include a "black market", a term euphemistically used to commercial transactions entered into between parties in defiance of law. In that situation, a statutory limitation of rent circumscribes the scope of the bargain in the market. In no circumstances, the hypothetical rent can exceed that limit".
In our opinion, this has no application whatsoever to the present controversy. There was a clear-cut prohibition on the landlord in charging anything more than the standard rent. Therefore, the Apex Court construed the provisions of Section 127(a) and held that the landlord is only permitted to charge the standard rent and in case he charges more than the standard rent, then he may be liable under the provisions of the Rent Act for punishment. But for rating only standard rent can be taken as basis.
13. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the Judgment in - New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M. N. Soi and Anr. The Apex Court was considering the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. In the said case, the landlord was charging rent to the tenant in excess of the standard or fair rent. The question arose whether the rating should be fixed on the basis of actual rent charged or on the basis of the standard or fair rent. Relying upon the earlier Judgments, particularly (cited supra), it was held that the rateable value can be fixed on the basis of fair or standard rent and not on the basis of the actual rent charged. It was held that the municipal authorities cannot take advantage of the defiance of law by the landlord of the Tent restriction law and which is visited by penal consequences. It was held that rating cannot operate as a mode of sharing the benefits of illegal rack-renting indulged in by rapacious landlords for whose activities the law prescribed condign punishment. However, in the present case, we do not find that permitting the Corporation to impose general or property tax on all buildings which are occupied or legally capable of occupation would amount to permitting the Municipal Corporation to do something which is not permitted by law. They may be constructed authorisedly or unauthorisedly. In fact, as pointed above, there is no provision prohibiting imposition of general tax on said building. Therefore, we answer the Reference in the following manner :-
The Municipal Corporation is entitled to levy property or general tax prescribed in case of unauthorised or illegal structures which are constructed without getting the Building Plans sanction by the Corporation and which are occupied without the Corporation issuing the Occupation Certificate.
14. Appeals, be placed before the learned Single Judge for final disposal.