Bombay High Court
The Muncipal Commissioner Nagpur ... vs Prabhakar S/O Hariram Gulhane And ... on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) cra129.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.129/2018
Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and anr. .vs. Prabhakar s/o Hariram Gulhane and anr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. M. Kukday, Advocate for applicants.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 27.07.2022
Heard Mr. Kukday, learned counsel for applicants.
2. The revision challenges the judgment dated
27.07.2015, passed by Ad hoc District Judge-I, in an appeal
under Section 130 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act,
challenging the order dated 25.10.2013, passed by the
Objection Officer, Dharampeth Zone No.2, NMC, Nagpur,
rejecting the objections raised by the respondents, to the
demand notice for tax, claiming a tax liability of Rs.7,55,435/-
upon the land of plot no.8, claimed to have been purchased by
the respondent under the sale deed dated 13.10.1980,
whereby the learned Ad hoc District Judge has set aside the
order of the Objection Officer dated 252013 and rendered a
finding that plot no.8, Kh. Nos. 41,42 of mouja Kachimet,
admeasuring 18150 Sq.Ft. is not assessable to tax on the
ground that it does not fall within the definition of "Land" as
defined under Section 5 (24) of the City of Nagpur
Corporation Act, 1948, as it continued to be agricultural land.
(2) cra129.18
3. Mr. Kukday, learned counsel for the applicant,
submits that the finding by the learned Court below was
incorrect and the question whether agricultural land was
included within the definition of land as contained in Section
5 (24) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act was no longer
res integra but was already decided by the learned Division
Bench of this Court in Hanuamant Morbaji Gudadhe and Ors.
Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., Writ Petition No.1276/1996
and other connected matters by the judgment dated
18.08.2011. He submits that the reliance placed by the
learned lower Court on Bestech Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon
and Ors. .vs. Assistant Commissioner, Zone-4, Nagpur
Municipal Corporation;1, which takes a contrary view, is not
justified as the judgment in Hanumant Morbaji Gudadhe
(supra) has not been brought to the notice of the learned
Court therein or of the Court below. It is therefore submitted
that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside
and that of the Objection Officer is liable to be restored.
4. Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
respondent is absent, considering which, list the matter as part
heard tomorrow on 28.07.2022.
JUDGE
kahale
Digitally signed byYOGESH
ARVIND KAHALE
1 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 803 Signing Date:27.07.2022
17:47
