Chattisgarh High Court
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:27611
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3176 of 2025
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited, The Sr. Vice President (Works), Malpuri
Khurd, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, Dist Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector Durg, Dist Durg (C.G.)
3 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipality Of Ahiwara, Dist. Durg
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Ankur Pandey Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer,
Municipality Of Ahiwara, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh..
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. N. Naha Roy & Mr. Nikitesh
Gupta, Advocates
For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
25/06/2025
1. The petitioner has been preferred this writ petition with the
following relief(s) :
"10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and quash and the
order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the
entire proceeding of reassessment of property tax for
the same being absolutely arbitrary and without
jurisdiction on the part of the respondent No.:3/4.
10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in
the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order
impugned herein suffering from vice of absolute arbitrariness and
being outcome of unilateral exercise of power causing undue
harassment and agony needs a suitable intervention by this Court.
The order impugned herein being in continuation of the earlier
orders dated 24.04.2025/12.03.2025 suffering from self-
contradiction on account of mentioning the amount of property tax
to be paid and at the same time asking the petitioner to participate
in the measurement of the premises for the purpose of assessment
of property tax is misconceived in law and as such deserves to be
quashed by this Court. He further contended that the order
impugned herein being in continuation of the earlier orders dated
24.04.2025/12.03.2025 is instrumental to opening of the issue of
payment of property tax for the year 2015-16 despite the same
having already settled way back after lapse of a decade is nothing
but an instrument of recovering undue tax from the petitioner
causing a great harassment to it, which being contrary to the
common industrial policy of the State deserves suitable intervention
of this Court. He further contended that the order impugned herein
showing intransigence on part of the respondent No.: 3/4 for
repeatedly asking the petitioner to submit permission to construct
buildings/infrastructure despite being pointed out of having no
jurisdiction in view of the petitioner governing with the Adhiniyam
of 1973, ousting its jurisdiction with a non-obstante clause as
available under section 13(3) of it, the intervention of this Hon'ble
Court is badly called for to protect the petitioner from undue
harassment and agony. He further contended that the petitioner
having obtained all due permissions from the competent authority
on payment of requisite fee under Adhiniyam of 1973 as explained
above is a law abiding company and deserves protection against the
impudence shown by the respondent No.: 3/4.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with utmost circumspection.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal
of the record, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that Exhibit P/1 notice has been issued by respondent No.3 on the
basis of notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the State
Government. This Court has passed the order WP(T) No.02/2018
vide a detailed judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 and held that
there is complete disregard to the procedure prescribed under
Section 133-B of the Act, 1956.
"28. ..........., but the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation on its own proceeded to hold the
memo dated 31-8-2015 which is only a notice
under Section 133-B holding the same to be an
order by the State Government which is the
controlling and higher authority of the
Corporation, passed order enhancing the annual
letting value of the property as well as property tax,
as such, there is no order under Section 133-B of
the Act of 1956 requiring the Municipal
Corporation to enhance the annual letting value of
the property and it has been enhanced only on the
basis of notice dated 31-8-2015 issued by the State
Government as such, there is complete disregard to
the procedure prescribed in Section 133-B of the
Act of 1956.
44. In the present case, the act of the respondent
Corporation in recovering. the enhanced tax in
breach of Article 265 of the Constitution of India is
nothing but fraud on the Constitution of India and
the Act of 1956 and it is a breach of faith of the
public at large. Therefore, I consider it just and
appropriate to impose exemplary cost on it. This is
imperative as it would discourage the Corporation
to recover property tax in future unauthorisedly.
Cost imposed on the Municipal Corporation is
quantified as ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) for
indulging in illegally recovering huge property tax
from the petitioner/assessee. Cost will be deposited
within a period of four weeks to the Chhattisgarh
High Court Legal Service Committee."
6. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court which
has been registered as WP(C) No.2255/2025 and this Court has
passed the order on 09.05.2025, in which it is observed in Para-7, 9
& 10 are as under :
"7. Respondent No. 3 is directed to grant the petitioner
a reasonable opportunity to submit its reply,
documents, and any objections regarding the alleged
outstanding dues. The authorities shall give proper
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereafter pass
a reasoned order after considering the submissions of
petitioner and all the relevant materials. Further, the
premises of the petitioner shall be measured for the
purpose of assessment of tax in accordance with law,
in the week commencing 26th May, 2025. The
measurement shall be carried out in the presence of the
petitioner or its authorized representative. Considering
the huge surrounding of the premises of petitioner, the
petitioner is also advised to extend full cooperation
and assistance to the authorities so that the process
may be conducted smoothly and efficiently.
9. Considering aforesaid aspect of the intervention
application, particularly taking note of the fact that
notice dated 24.04.2025 has been issued by the Chief
Municipal Officer, Ahirwara, the intervention
application is allowed. It is further directed that
wherever in the record or proceedings respondent No.
3 has been described as "Chief Executive Officer,
Ahirwara" the same shall be read and construed as
"Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara".
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. All rights
and contentions of the parties are left open."
7. The notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.3 seeking
required documents with regard to permission of construction of
building and other related documents.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that no coercive order has been
passed by the respondent No.3 or 4 against the petitioner.
9. On perusal of the Annexure P-1, it reveals that respondent No.3 has
given direction to the petitioner to file documents and petitioner has
right to submit its reply or any other objection regarding the alleged
outstanding dues based upon that notification dated 31.08.2015 and
also petitioner has right to raise objection with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, therefore, it is directed to
the petitioner to file all its documents, and submits of its reply, if
any, all the objections before respondent No.3 within a period of
'20 days' from today and in-turn respondent No.3 shall examine all
the documents/objections presented by the petitioner as raised in the
writ petition and decide the same by reasoned order within a period
of '45 days' from the date of receipt of documents and reply of the
petitioner, in accordance with relevant rules, regulations and law.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any
observation made by this Court and shall decide the case of the
petitioner on its own merits.
11. With the aforesaid observation & direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
