Bombay High Court
Dr.Samuel Hahnemann Charritable ... vs Municipal Corporation Amravati on 16 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp692.99 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 692 OF 1999
Dr. Samuel Hannemann Charitable
Medical Aids and Social Health
Welfare Society, by its President
Dr. S.A. Dhole, aged about 41 years,
resident of Amravati, Taluka and
District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versusig
Municipal Corporation, Amravati,
through its Commissioner. ... RESPONDENT
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Shri Kasat, learned counsel, is seeking some time as
he has not received full instructions from the respondent -
Corporation.
3. We find that the matter was called out on
06.06.2016 and was adjourned. Then it was again called out
on 13.06.2016 and adjourned to today.
4. Shri Saboo, learned counsel submits that the
respondent - Corporation adopted carpet area as a norm for
determination of Annual Letting Value (A.L.V.) to demand
property tax and other taxes. This adoption of carpet area has
been found unconstitutional by this Court in Writ Petition No.
2872 of 1989. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench
of this Court on 21.12.1990 granted leave to the respondent -
Corporation to reassess the properties. The Corporation
approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex
Court has on 29.07.1991 disposed of Special Leave Petition No.
4902 of 1991. The leave was granted and with certain
modifications, the Corporation was given right to re-determine
the Annual Letting Value and taxes.
5. Shri Saboo, learned counsel submits that the
Hon'ble Apex Court restricted the benefit of judgment of High
Court to such of the assessees who had objected to property tax
assessment. The petitioner being one of them, was waiting for
re-assessment but that was never done. In the face of this
judgment, the respondent - Corporation illegally and high
handedly again demanded taxes on the same basis i.e. on the
basis of carpet value. Therefore, the present writ petition came
to be filed.
6. According to him, in this situation, the judgment
delivered by this Court needs to be implemented and the
property of the petitioner - which is a Charitable institute needs
to be assessed accordingly and reasonably. He submits that
because of a Civil Suit filed earlier, the petitioner - assessee
was permitted to pay property tax at old rates and the
petitioner has continued to deposit the tax at that rate.
7. Shri Kasat, learned counsel has invited our attention
to the orders available on record. He submits that as per his
instructions, in view of liberty given by this Court, an attempt
was made to revise property tax and the properties in Amravati
town were subjected to revision in 2004. According to him,
reassessment of the petitioner's property in pursuance of liberty
given by this Court was undertaken in the year 2001.
8. Shri Saboo, learned counsel points out that all these
developments are not on record as there is no reply affidavit
filed by the Corporation. He submits that in this situation, the
petitioner does not get an opportunity to rebut the facts by
filing any counter affidavit.
9. In this matter, we find that practically after the year
1988-89, the property tax in Amravati town may not have been
revised. The reassessment of individual property was permitted
by this Court when it delivered its judgment in Writ Petition
No. 2872 of 1989 and that judgment was maintained by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.07.1991. Even if statement made by
Shri Kasat, learned counsel, is to be accepted, reassessment has
been done 10 years thereafter i.e. on 2001 and general revision
of property tax has been done in the year 2004.
10. A perusal of last document with Writ Petition
produced by the petitioner shows that the tax was demanded
for the period from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1999. There, the
current demand is shown to be Rs.23,359/- and total demand
including arrears is of Rs.2,10,744/-.
11. In this situation, we find that the interest of justice
can be met with by directing the petitioner to deposit an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with the respondent - Corporation
within a period of 15 days from today. The respondent -
Corporation shall extend an opportunity of hearing in the
matter to the petitioner and if the properties are reassessed,
such reassessment shall be pointed out to it. If the properties
are reassessed, the same shall be subject to reassessment in
terms of liberty given by this Court. However, the revised rate
of tax shall be made applicable from the date on which it has
been made applicable to all other occupants/ citizens in
Amravati. This process shall be completed within next three
months.
12. Leaving all rival contentions in relation thereto
open and with these directions, writ petition is disposed of and
rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
******
*GS.
