[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Muncipal Corporation, Indore vs Satya Sai Shik.Vi.Trust ... on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
1 CR-247-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 247 of 2006
INDORE MUNCIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE
Versus
SATYA SAI SHIK.VI.TRUST THR.SK.SACHDEVA
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Chinmay Kalgaonker - Advocate and Ms. Vibha Bharuka -
Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This Civil Revision under Section 392 of M.P.Municipal Corporation
Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been preferred
against the the order dated 17.08.2006 in M.A.No.05/2005 passed by III
Additional District Judge, Indore whereby the miscellaneous appeal has been
allowed and the order of the assessment officer dated 28.04.2001 has been
set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Satya Sai Shiksha Vihar
Trust is situated in Ward No.3, City Center no.2, Scheme No.54, A.B.Raod,
Indore and respondent/appellant before the appellate Court (hereinafter
referred to as respondent/appellant) is the owner of the aforesaid Satya Sai
School. Earlier annual assessment of the respondent/appellant was @ Rs.6.25
and Rs.9.5 per square feet. The respondent/ appellant raised objection in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
2 CR-247-2006
regard on 31.10.1992. An order dated 18.02.1998 was passed whereby the
objection raised on behalf of the respondent/appellant was rejected. The
order of rejection was challenged in Appeal No.13/98 which was allowed
vide order dated 05.11.1998 and the order dated 18.02.1998 was set aside
and the case was remanded back for re-assessment, but thereafter upto
29.03.2001 no order was passed.
2.1 The respondent/appellant has raised objection that after coming
into force the Rent Rules, 1997, the respondent/appellant did not follow
Rules 5 ,6 and 8 and even no resolution was published. Thereafter, objection
by the respondent/appellant was raised on 30.01.1999 and without resolving
the aforesaid objection, on 14.12.2000 new notice was issued to the appellant
whereby on 19.01.2001 respondent/appellant again raised objection and
thereon order dated 28.04.2001 was passed, but no intimation was given to
the respondent/appellant in this regard. Thereafter, when he came to know
about the aforesaid order, he filed an application for obtaining copy of order
on 04.07.2001 and the copy of the order was obtained on 13.08.2001.
2.2 Thereafter the miscellaneous appeal no.05/2005 was filed on
which after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties vide
impugned order dated 17.08.2006, Annexure P-1 was allowed and the order
of the assessment officer dated 28.04.2001 was set aside and the sanitation
cess of Rs.1,40,489/- and surcharge of Rs.21,072/- was found not proper.
The education cess in the year 2000-2001 @ 2% alongwith water surcharge
of Rs.28,097/- was also set aside. It was further held that Municipal
Corporation can recover sanitation cess from 01.04.1997 @ Rs.180/- and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
3 CR-247-2006
water tax @ Rs.60/- per month from the respondent/appellant. Accordingly,
appeal was disposed off which is under challenge in this Civil Revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inviting attention of this Court
towards sub clause (c) of Section 136 of the Act submits that since the
respondent/appellant is not the owner of the land where on respondent
educational institution is established, therefore it is not entitled for exemption
from the property tax. He further submits that the order passed by the Court
below is not accordance with the Act and Rules made under the Act. He
further submits that self-assessment done by the respondent/appellant was
not challenged anywhere. The notification dated 05.05.1997 has been
wrongly relied upon by the Court below. On these submissions prays for
setting aside the impugned order by allowing this civil revision.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
respondent being the educational institution is exempted from the property
tax. Inviting attention of this Court towards Annexure P-2, which is specific
notice issued under Section 146/153 of the Act and sub-rule 12(1) of
M.P.Annual Rent Value Rules, 1997 submits that in this notice property tax
has been shown as nil because the property tax was not leviable on the
respondent as respondent is exempted from the property tax. In this regard,
attention of this Court has also been invited towards Annexure P-9,
resolution of the applicant, Sections 132(1) and 138(2) of the Act to buttress
his contention that annual letting value is applicable only for the assessment
of property tax where from the respondent is exempted.
4.1 He has also invited attention of this Court towards Preamble of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
4 CR-247-2006
the M.P. Municipality (Determination of Annual Letting Value of
Building/Lands) Rules, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred to as
'Rules,1997') and also Rule 2(d), Rule 6(d) and Rule 13 relating to surcharge.
He further submits that contention raised before this Court that the
respondent is not exempted from the property tax has neither been taken
before the appellate Court nor before the assessment officer hence, this
objection cannot be raised for the first time before this Court in revision
where jurisdiction of this Court is limited under Section 115 of CPC where
under it is to be looked into (i) where learned Court below has exercised
jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) to have failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity. To buttress his submissions he has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mathuram
Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (paras 16,17 & 18),
order dated 29.10.2025 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Chamelidevi Public School Administered by Agrawal Charitable Trust Vs.
Indore Municipal Corporation and others W.P.No.23486/2021 (paras 2, 3 &
6), order dated 20.03.2018 in W.P.No.1587/2016 Daya Devi Education
Committee Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and another, Essarjee
Education Society Vs. State of M.P.and others 2016 (4) MPLJ 118 (para 38)
and para 10 of the order dated 22.08.2014 W.P.No.2934/2010 Rishiraj
College of Dental Sciences And Research Centre Vs. The Municipal
Corporation.
5. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
5 CR-247-2006
the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent being educational institution is
exempted from property tax. The same view has been taken in the case of
Daya Devi Education Committee (supra) wherein levy of taxes under
Section 132(1)(c)(d) and (e) and water cess under Section 132A of 1956 Act
is upheld. Whereas the property tax under Section 132(1), Urban
Development cess under Section 132(1)(o) and education cess being
exempted in respect of building/land of educational institutions were set
aside. The aforesaid judgment squarely covers the factual matrix in the
instant case. In this judgment Essarjee Education Society (Supra) and other
relevant judgments have been relied upon. It is also admitted in appeal memo
before the appellate Court that no objection with regard to exemption of the
respondent from the property tax was raised therefore, it cannot be raised for
the first time before this Court.
6.1 From perusal of the impugned order dated 17.08.2006 passed by
the appellate Court in M.A.No.05/2005 it is apparent that all the relevant
provisions of the Act have been taken into account while passing the
impugned order. When there was no liability on the respondent/appellant for
the property tax, then no surcharge can be imposed.
7. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction
for re-appreciating the factual aspects of the case as mentioned herein above.
This jurisdiction can be exercised only to see whether the learned Court
below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to
exercise jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
6 CR-247-2006
illegally or with material irregularity. The limits of revisional jurisdiction
have also been taken into account by the Apex Court in the case of DLF
Housing and Construction Company Private Limited Vs. Sarup Singh and
others reported in (1969) 3 SCC 807. The relevant portion of paras 4 and 5
are reproduced as under:-
"The submissions made by Shri Gupte, in our opinion, possess merit.
The revisional jurisdiction has been conferred on the High Court by
Section 115 of CPC in these terms:
"115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has
been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in
which no appeal lies thereto, and if such Subordinate Court appears-
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not. vested in it by law or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity,
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
The mass or reported cases only serve to show that the High Courts do
not always appreciate the limits of their jurisdiction under this section.
The legal position was authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council
as far back as 1894 in Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh
11 Indian Appeals 237 . The Privy Council again pointed out in
Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar 44 Indian Appeals 261 that
this section is not directed against the conclusions of law or fact in
which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. This view was
approved by this Court in Keshav Deo v. Radha Kissan [1953] S.C.R.
136 and has since been reaffirmed in numerous decisions.
5. The position thus seems to. be firmly established that while
exercising the jurisdiction under s. 115, it is not competent to the High
Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law
unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to
try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain
reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not
contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned
Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested
in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him,
in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed
till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for
specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also
does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and
"with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either
errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but
merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated
by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some
provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the
ultimate decision, and not to. errors either of fact or of law, after the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7332
7 CR-247-2006
prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does
not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power
under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would
have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a
different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference
proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify
interference on revision under Section 115 of the Code when there.
was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned
Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this question.
It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision
virtually as if it was an appeal."
8. In the light of the aforesaid, nothing has been found in the
impugned order that can bring it within the aforesaid parameters. The order
passed by the Court below is well within its jurisdiction, passed on factual
matrix of the case and provisions of law have been properly applied for
arriving at a lawful conclusion.
9. Resultantly, this Civil Revision filed on behalf of the applicant is
sans merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
