1 213 ao.308.04 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 308 OF 2004 Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat, Mirjole, Taluka Ratnagiri, District Ratnagiri. ... Appellant Versus Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation, Ratnagiri. ... Respondent ----- Mr. N.N.Gawankar i/b Mr.Arfan Sait for the Appellant. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 01 st April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant were heard yesterday. As none appeared for the Respondent, the appeal was adjourned till today. When the appeal is called out today, none appears for the Respondent. 2 The Respondent filed a suit for injunction restraining the Appellant – Village Panchayat from recovering a sum of Rs.6,60,261.15 2 213 ao.308.04 from the Respondent. In the plaint, it is alleged that a demand of property taxes in the sum of Rs.6,60,261.15 was made by the Appellant – Village Panchayat from the Respondent. As the amount was not paid, a show-cause-notice was issued by the Appellant to the Respondent, which is styled as a notice sent before issue of attachment warrant. 3 A preliminary issue of jurisdiction was framed at the instance of the Appellant – Village Panchayat on the basis of a contention that the demand made by the Appellant – Village Panchayat for property taxes can be challenged by the Respondent only by preferring an appeal in accordance with sub-Section (5) of Section 124 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1958”). The trial Court upheld the contention of the Appellant and dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the Respondent before the District Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the District Court has interfered and has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Therefore, order of remand was passed by the District Court. 3 213 ao.308.04 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that under sub-Section (5) of section 124 of the Act of 1958, a remedy was provided to the Respondent to prefer an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti. In fact, a further appeal was provided to the Standing Committee. He submitted that by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error. 5 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the judgment of the Courts below. It appears that the only contention raised by the Respondent was that in view of Section 184 of the Railways Act, the Appellant – Village Panchayat was not entitled to levy property taxes. The Appellate Court has observed that the question whether the Respondent – plaintiff is entitled to claim exemption or not can be decided only by the Civil Court. 6 As stated earlier, there are two successive statutory appeals provided against a demand made for the property taxes. The issue of 4 213 ao.308.04 legality and validity of the demand of property taxes can be considered by the Appellate Authorities. The Appellate Authority can always consider the question whether the Respondent is entitled to exemption. The said Act of 1958 is a complete code by itself insofar as levy of property taxes by a village panchayat is concerned. Therefore, it follows that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by necessary implication. In fact, in the plaint, there is an averment that against the demand, the Respondent approached the Panchayat Samiti and that the Panchayat Samiti has granted stay. 7 Hence, the view taken by the Appellate Court is completely erroneous. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court will have to be restored. 8 Accordingly, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 28 th March, 2003 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order dated 21 st August, 2001 is restored and the Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2001 stands dismissed ; 5 213 ao.308.04 ii. The appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]