Ispat Industries Ltd vs The Gram Panchayat, Bramhani
2017 Latest Caselaw 4364 Bom

                                  1
                                                               wp1119.00.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.1119 of 2000


  Ispat Industries Ltd.,
  A-10/1, MIDC Industrial Area,
  Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur.                          ... Petitioner


        Versus


  The Gram Panchayat, Bramhani,
  through its Sarpanch,
  At Village Bramhani,
  Tq. Kalmeshwar,
  Distt. Nagpur.                                      ... Respondent


  S/Shri Firdos Mirza and S.N. Kumar, Advocates for Petitioner.
  S/Shri A.M. Ghare and V.S. Bapat, Advocates for Respondent.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

th Dated : 12 July, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. The question involved in this petition is regarding

imposition and recovery of property tax by the respondent-Gram

Panchayat, Bramhani from the petitioner in respect of the factory

wp1119.00.odt

premises establishment. A lump sum demand for the

years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per

year was made to the petitioner by the communication

dated 9-3-2000, and this is the subject-matter of challenge in this

petition.

2. It is not in dispute that the factory owned by the

petitioner is located in the area which was within the territorial

jurisdiction of Bramhani Gram Panchayat up to 4-9-1987.

On 4-9-1987 and 1-1-1988, two separate notifications were

issued by the Government of Maharashtra under sub-section (2)

of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959

deleting certain areas, which include the area on which the

factory of the petitioner is located, from the jurisdiction of

Bramhani Gram Panchayat. The challenge to these notifications

at the instance of Bramhani Gram Panchayat has attained the

finality, as this Court dismissed the petition and the Special Leave

Petition preferred before the Apex Court was also dismissed. In

view of this, the respondent- Bramhani Gram Panchayat had no

wp1119.00.odt

authority to impose, demand and collect the property tax from

the petitioner after 4-9-1987, for the years 1988-1989 and

1999-2000 as per the communication dated 9-3-2000.

3. Shri Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent- Bramhani Gram Panchayat, does not dispute the fact

that the area in which the property of the petitioner is located

was brought within the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation ("MIDC") after its deletion by the

notification dated 4-9-1987 from the jurisdiction of Bramhani

Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is, therefore, required to comply

with the demand issued by the MIDC. It is urged by Shri Ghare

that the position would be that the petitioner is not being taxed

either by the Gram Panchayat or by any local authority, like

Municipal Council. He has placed reliance upon the order passed

by the Apex Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No.29840 of 2014 arising out of the judgment and order dated 9-

9-2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6568 of 2013. It

is not in dispute that Writ Petition No.6568 of 2013 challenged

wp1119.00.odt

the subsequent notification dated 1-1-1988, and the Special

Leave Petition before the Apex Court was disposed of by the Apex

Court on 23-2-2017 by an order, which is reproduced below :

" Learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the matter has already been settled out-of-Court.

In view of the submission made, no order need be passed in this Special Leave Petition and the same stands disposed of."

Shri Ghare submits that there is a proposal pending with the

State Government to merge Gram Panchayat, Bramhani into

Gram Panchayat, Kalmeshwar to constitute a Municipal Council;

and if this proposal is accepted, it is possible that the area where

the property of the petitioner is situated, would be included

within the jurisdiction of such Municipal Council. He, therefore,

submits that the successor-in-interest of Bramhani Gram

Panchayat would, therefore, be entitled to impose, demand and

collect the property tax from the petitioner.

wp1119.00.odt

4. Here, we are concerned only with the fact that

Bramhani Gram Panchayat was not authorized to impose,

demand and collect the property tax from the petitioner

after 4-9-1987. If the petitioner has deposited any amount in

this Court pursuant to the interim order passed in this petition,

we cannot permit Bramhani Gram Panchayat to retain such

amount which is collected unauthorizedly or withdrawn from

this count. The interim order passed by this Court would not

confer any authority on Bramhani Gram Panchayat to retain

such amount once the petition is allowed. We will have to

therefore pass an order of restoration in favour of the petitioner

on the basis of the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit by

directing the respondent- Bramhani Gram Panchayat to refund

the amount received by it by way of interim order passed in this

petition, to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The

communication dated 9-3-2000, impugned in this petition, is

hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the

wp1119.00.odt

respondent- Bramhani Gram Panchayat had no authority to

impose, demand and collect the property tax from the petitioner

from 4-9-1987. Whatever amount is collected by Bramhani

Gram Panchayat from the petitioner under the interim order

passed by this Court, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a

period of eight weeks from today; failing which the petitioner

shall be at liberty to execute this order as a decree along with

interest on such amount at the rate of 8% per annum.

6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                          JUDGE.                                      JUDGE.

   Lanjewar