FA/59920/2004 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 599 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ================================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made thereunder? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? NO ================================================= = AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant Versus BALDEVBHAI RANCHHOBHAI PATEL - Defendant ================================================= =Appearance : MS JIRGA D JHAVERI for the Appellant. RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent. ================================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 17/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH) 1. The respondent is unserved. However, heard FA/59920/2004 2/4 JUDGMENT learned Counsel Ms. Jirga D. Jhaveri for the appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 2. By filing the present appeal, the appellant- Corporation has assailed the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in MVA No. 404 of 1997 in the appeal filed before the Small Cause Court by the respondent (original appellant) wherein he assailed the assessment of GRV for the year 1996-1997 of the premises bearing Survey No. 44/AB/FP/38; M. C. No. B-13; Tenement No. 2657/0113/00/0001 of Ward Dariyapur-Kazipur- Revenue-1, Ahmedabad. 3. According to learned Advocate Ms. Jirga D. Jhaveri, the appellant-Corporation is entitled to revise the assessment and fix the GRV every year and in this particular case, as there was some increase in the constructed portion, the appellant- Corporation decided to increase the GRV assessed for the year 1996-97. 4. Indisputably, the assessment made by the appellant-Corporation was resisted by the respondent- assessee by filing written objections. The authority was supposed to consider the objections raised on its own merits. Formal appearance before the authority ought not have been looked into seriously in the manner in which it has been taken into account by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal more particularly in view the facts emerging from paragraph-4 of the judgment under challenge and the reasons assigned by the learned Judge in the very paragraph. For the sake of convenience, we would like to FA/59920/2004 3/4 JUDGMENT produce the same as it directly concerns to the submissions made before us by the learned Advocate for the appellant- Corporation: “4. Now, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant shows that the total value of the appeal-premises is Rs. 50000/-. Moreover, from the xerox of judgment Exh. 14, it appears that the learned Judge of Small Cause Court No. 3, Ahmedabad has fixed the GRV of the appeal- premises at Rs. 3500/- for the assessment year of 1995-96. On the other hand, the respondent- Corporation has not produced any contrary evidence to negative the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to believe and accept the documentary evidence prdouced by the appellant. Now, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the area, measurement and use of the premises, GRV should be considered at 7% of the total value of the premises in question shown in the Index Exh. 12 i.e. Rs. 50000/-. Therefore, it should be fixed at Rs. 3500/- for the assessment year under appeal.” 5. The GRV fixed at Rs. 3500/- for the assessment year 1995-96 was challenged by way of appeal in the Small Cause Court and when there was no evidence on record to show that some construction or betterment of the property has been made by the respondent-assessee after that and prior to the assessment made for the year 1996-97, there was no need or scope for enhancing the GRV of the property. Therefore, adopting the reasons assigned by the learned Judge in paragraph-4, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Our attention is drawn to the scheme of Section 2 (1A) (aaa) of the Bombay Provincial and Municipal Corporation FA/59920/2004 4/4 JUDGMENT Act by the learned Advocate for the appellant-Corporation but in view of the above reasons that has been accepted and given by the learned lower Court, it is not possible for us to agree with the proposition made by the appellant-Corporation that the action of revision of GRV was just and proper on the part of the appellant-Corporation. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. [C. K. BUCH, J.] [H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath