1 W.P. 382/1997 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 1997 Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Degloor Through its Director Narayanrao Piraji Jiddiwar Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. Nil., R/o : Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Dy. Director Town Planning and Valuation Department, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. Municipal Council Degloor, through its Chief Officer Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ..... RESPONDENTS 2 W.P. 382/1997 - ( J ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.V. Chandole, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Advocate for respondent no. 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15/06/2010 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05/08/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner seeks direction to cancel the tax levied on the property of the petitioner vide demand notice of 1992. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent - Municipal Council increased the property tax in the year 1992. On this same house some new construction is made but the Municipal Council has divided them in two parts are being assessed for payment of property tax separately. The objection filed by the petitioner is not properly considered. According to the petitioner, the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 ( For short, ' said Act ' ) and Maharashtra Municipalities Rules, 1969 ( For short, ' said Rules ' ) are not followed. 3 W.P. 382/1997 - ( J ) 3. Mr. Chandole, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the provisions of the Statute and the procedure laid down for assessment and levy of the property tax as laid down under the said Act and Rules have to be scrupulously adhered. Any violation thereof would dis-entitle the respondent - Municipal Council from charging the property tax. 4. He further submitted that the Valuation Officer has not been appointed in the year 1992 and as such provisions of Section 113 are not followed. The ratable value has not been determined as is required U/s 114 of the said Act. It has to be on the basis of the fair rent. In the present case, it has been done on average rent basis. The division of property for the purpose of the tax is without any reason and against the Rules. 5. We have considered the arguments of the respective counsels. 6. It would be seen that the petitioner is challenging the property tax levied in the year 1992. Prior to that, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal. The said Appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority. But the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. 7. More over, the petitioner himself has admitted that the hearing 4 W.P. 382/1997 - ( J ) was given, but according to him, the said hearing was not proper. The details as to how the hearing was not proper, has not been spelt out in the petition. Perusal of the objections raised before the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council would show that the only objection raised is that the ratable value is being determined on rental value and the same is erroneous. The property tax is exorbitant. Apart from these objections, no other objections were raised. The petitioner in his objection nor in the present petition has detailed about the actual fair rent. In absence of the same, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the rate of tax levied or the ratable value determined is improper. The petition is bereft of details as to how the procedure has not been followed. The appointment of the Valuation Officer is not mandatory but directory. 8. The contention of the petitioner that for the purpose of tax, one property has been shown to have been divided and separate tax has been imposed, can not be considered in view of the fact that the petitioner himself states that some new construction was made. Now, whether the said new construction was given a separate number or not, whether the same is a separate property or not, is a disputed question of fact. In Writ jurisdiction, we would not embark upon such an enquiry. 9. In the light of the above, the petition being sans merit, is 5 W.P. 382/1997 - ( J ) dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 382.97