HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0.91 OF 2007 DivJsioiLBench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. 33 APPLICANT PETITIONER NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Food Corporation of India, Bilaspur (CG) Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur ORDER FQR C^NSIDERATIOM Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HON'BLE SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, J Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge j -^ POST ON f2> APRIL. 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge :^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0.91 OF 2007 Division Bench : Hon'hle Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, JJ APPLICANT PETITIONER VERSUS NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT Food Corporation of India, Through District Manager, (Now known as area Manager) Food Corporation of India, Branch, Link Road, Bilaspur (CG) Municipal Corporation at Bilaspur Through its' Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG) Present: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondent. ORD E R (Passed on fS'^April, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, 3 By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment/order dated 9th March, 2006 passed by learned SingleJudge in Civil RevisionNo. 141/2000. 02. Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication of this review petition are that, the Food Corporation of India constructed godowns on 24.11.1976 in an area situated within the territorial limits of erstwhile Municipal Council, Bilaspur. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur was constituted vide notification dated 26.12.1980. The petitioner was seryed with a notice under Section 144 (i) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short "the Act") directing the petitioner to submit written statement regarding the property owned and occupied by it. The petitioner filed its return and admitted ownership of the godowns and staff quarters etc. TheMunicipal Corporation, Bilaspur after physical verification valued the property and imposed property tax of Rs, 7,71,883.97 and conservancy tax of Rs. 1,78,676.84 payable from 1976-77 and pue xei A;jadojd 341 SPJBMO} A4!|!qei| s;! psidsose pue gooz'E'EZ uo iuaLuaaj6e ue oiui psjsius peq jauopiied sqi ;eq} papu34uo3 'suoissiujqns |BJO si! ui se ||9M se uo]i!}ad MSIASJ sqi 04 A|d3j uj uoiiejodjoo ledisiunM-iuapuodssj 344 'pueq jsqio aqi UQ •go "I3d 344 jo uojsssssod ui si qoiqM '•IAOS |ejiU33 944 Aq pSUMO /S|J8dOJd SLjl JOJ 40U pue oj 341 Aq PSUMO A^jsdojd 3144 JQJ ^iuo C,l3d»Ai]A3jq joj) eipui ^o uopejodjoo pooj SL); uodn pssodLui sq UB3 xe4 AiJsdojd sqi -pv 3L|4 jo (V)(T)9£T uoiioss pue eipui jo UO!4ni!lSU03 9L|1 JO S8Z 3|3!1-IV -isd se sujes 94} uo xei A}jsdojd AAS] oi ;u3i3dLU03 }ou sj Aiiiedioiun^ aqi 'sjojsjsqi pue luaujujSAOS |EJ}U93 34} jo d!L]SJ9UMO 9qi japun sq 04 9nu!4uo3 uoiissnb U! 5u!p|inq pue pue| SL|I 'spjo33j snu3A9J J9d se IGLII psuiiuqns jsuoiiHod sqi JQJ Buuesdde |9sunoo psujeei 'eidns da MMS 'SO •uoi}!43d M31A3J e 6ui|y joj ijno3 46]|-| SAOLU 04 jauoRBSd 3L|} 01 Aijaqi] L|IIM /.OOZ'TT'ZT psiep J9p.io spiA ijnoo stusjdns 3[q,uoH SMI Aq 'UMBJpqiiM se psssiujsip uieBe SBM MSIAOJ jspun JSpJO 9L); 1SUIB69 U01;!43d 3AB3-| |B!33dS S,J9UO!l!49d eqi -^O •M31A3J jspun jspjo aq; Aq passiujsip we6e SBM jspjo SAoqe sq} isuieBe jauoiissd 341 Aq pajja^ejd UOISIASJ IIAJS 941 •A|3Aipadsoji9J speuj aq 4ouue3 xoi jo ^SAOSSJ 'jsASMoq 'jndse|ig 'uoiiejodjo^ |edpiunw aq4 Aq passssse se xe? sqi Aed 0} 3\qe\\ si jsuo!;!;ad sq; leqi pisq jndse|!g 'a6pnf 43U1SIQ |9UOI}!ppV P3UJB3-1 'S86T'S'9T PSIBP -isp-io 341 ^suieBe loy 3L|i jo 6frT U01133S jspun lesdde ue psjjspjd jsuoiissd eqi 'usqi '886T'S'9T uo uoiiejodj03 341 Aq ps^efsj SJOM jsuooiied 94} Aq q;jo^ ^nd suoiiosCqo sqi '88-^86T -leaA aq} joj X9i ASUBAJSSUOO pue xe; A4J9dojd 341 iisodsp 04 pap93uo3 jauoiiiiad 344 'pueq jsqio sqi UQ 'sses 341 jo ijoddns ui sDuspiAS jaLfio JQ Ajeiuaujnoop Aue ssnppe iou pip jsuoiiiisd 945 'jsASMoq 'jauoiisad sqi 05 Buuesq jo Aiiunijoddo ue pspjojje jndse|ig 'uo!iejodj03 ledioiunH OLJI -MSIASJ jspun japjo sqi jo £L|dej6ejGd u! psiieiap se 'SSGT'frYZ uo suo!439['qo s}i paiijiuqns jeuonpsd 341 •£0 •SUO]133['qO Sl! 6UHIAUI 43V 3LJ1 JO SfrT PUB £t?T suon3ss Japun jauo!i!i3d 941 04 aoiiou psnssi * deposited Rs. 50 lakh on the same date as an interim deposfl towards property tax. The petitioner itselfsubmitted calculation of its property tax before the answering respondent on 31.3.2006 and made self-assessment of the tax payable from 1987-88 to 1996-97 and 1997-98, vide Annexure R/3 dated 31.3.2006, acknowledging its ownership of the said property. This fact has also been suppressed by the petitioner. During assessment proceedings, the petitioner did not file any document nor adduced any evidence in support of its case. On the contrary, the petitioner conceded its liability towards property tax and conservancy tax. The only objection raised against the assessment of tax by the petitioner before the Municipal Corporation, Bilasur was that the assessment has been made at par with the private parties at the prevailing rate. 07. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review as also the documents filed by the respective parties along with this petition. 08. The order under review was passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not file any document or adduced any evidence during assessment proceedings and also conceded its liability towards the payment of property tax; it did not refute that the negotiations were going on for amicable compromise between the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner in the presence of District Collector and the petitioner agreed to withdraw legal proceedings and further agreed to make good the property tax. Since the petitioner conceded the assessment and its liability towards property tax, it was estopped from challenging the same any further. 09. The power to review its judgment is to be exercised within the parameters enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, according to which application for review can be made on the ground of discovery of new and important material or evidence, which could not be adduced by the applicant at the time when decree was passed or order was made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. 10. In the instant case, civil revision preferred by the petition^ against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in appeal under Section 149 of the Act, has been rejected on the ground that the order of the appellate authority is based on material available on record and also on the ground that the petitioner has itself conceded its liability towards payment of property tax and therefore, it is estopped from denying its liability. In our considered opinion, no ground, as envisaged under Order 47 Rule lofthe CPC, for review ofthe order impugned is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. — Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh; Judge fy ^