1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.890 OF 1998 Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. & anr .. Petitioners -versus The Municipal Corporation ofg Greater Mumbai & anr .. Respondents Dr. Milind Sathe Senior Advocate i/b M.G. Gawade,for the petitioners Shri A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms Shobha Ajita Kumar, for respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 11th August, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners in this petition claim to be the owners of following properties:- i) part of plot No. II C ii) Part of Plot No II C iii) Plot 2 B 2. According to petitioners, first plot was assessed 2 to property tax as vacant land from l.4.l989. The second plot was assessed to property tax as vacant land from l9.4.l99l and the third plot was assessed to property tax as vacant land from 22.2.l994. 3. The petitioners thereafter applied for commencement certificate which was granted on l.4.l997. Thereafter building on the land has been constructed and the occupation certificate in relation to the buildings have also been granted on various dates from l998 to August, 2000. It appears that in March, l998, notices were issued to the petitioner by Corporation for revising rateable value of the above said property w.e.f. l.4.l997. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging those notices. According to petitioners, there is no question of revising rateable value of the property treating it as a land under construction because according to petitioners, till the building is constructed on the land and it is occupied in accordance with law, for the purpose of assessing property tax, property has to be treated as vacant land. Therefore, rateable value of the property can 3 be revised only from the date of the occupation certificate and not with reference to the date when building was under construction. The petitioner rely on the judgment of Supreme Court, in case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay -vs- M/s Polychem Ltd. (l974) 2 Supreme Court Cases 198, in support of their submission. 4. The case of the Corporation is that by impugned show cause notice, Corporation does not propose to treat the property as anything else but vacant land till the occupation certificate was granted. According to Corporation when the property was assessed on the dates which we have mentioned above in the year l989, l99l and l994 as vacant land, the property was hilly track which was thereafter developed by the petitioners into buildable plot. The case of the corporation is that because of improvement in the utility of the land because of development carried out, the corporation is entitled to revise rateable value of the property; not as land on which building is being constructed, but as vacant land 4 itself. The case of the corporation is that the corporation does not propose of assess property to property tax as anything else but as vacant land till the occupation certificate was granted. According to corporation, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the validity of the show cause notice, according to petitioners, said revision can not take place or the corporation does not have authority to do so, then it is for them to lodge objection to the show cause notice. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. The petitioners obviously have approached this Court on the assumption that by the impugned show cause notice, the corporation propose to treat the property as land under construction for the purpose of assessing property tax. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as also statements made in paragraph Nos 5, 6 and 9 of affidavit filed on behalf of corporation which makes the position clear thus: “5. I say that the property bearing Ward Nos S-6434(H-8), (H-9), (H-10), (H-13), (3-J7), 5 (3 x l8), (3 -Jl3), (3-Jl4), (3-Jl6) and (3-Jl7), formerly represented a part of undeveloped and hilly plot of land assessed under ‘S’ ward No.6434 (l). The rateable value of the said original undeveloped and hilly plot was fixed as per the norms and policies of these Respondents. I say that on inspection, it was found that on part of the said undeveloped and hilly plot of land, the petitioners company had carried out development such as digging, excavation and levelling the said plot thereby forming a buildable plot of land. I further say that the Petitioners thereafter got the building plans sanctioned on such buildable plot and started construction work of the buildings in the month of April, l998. I further say that since the identity of the said plot from undeveloped hilly plot to buildable plot has been changed, it was necessary to revise the rateable value as per the policy of these Respondents. The said buildable plot of land has been sub divided and proposed to assess under different ward numbers as L.U.C. 6. I say that originally, the land which was hilly track, was assessed at lower rate for fixation of rateable value. However, after 6 converting the said undeveloped hilly track into a buildable plot of land, the same was brought to the level of cost of the neighbouring plots in the locality. The hill lock now does not exist on the said plot of land and consequently, the value of the said land enhanced. I say that the levelled buildable plot always fetch more value than the land which was hilly track in the past. 9. I say that the petitioners have started construction activities on the plots wherein infrastructures are being provided such as access. I say that these respondents are empowered to levy certain statutory taxes under section l39 and l40 of the M.M.C. Act, on the property here construction activities are started. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to pay such statutory taxes. I further say that these respondents are using the terminology of the land under construction only for identification of a plot of land where construction activities are started. However, the petitioners are duty bound to pay the taxes as levied by these respondents as per the provisions of law. 7. It is clear that the corporation does not propose 7 to treat land as anything else but vacant land for the purpose of revising assessment of property tax before occupation certificate was granted. In our opinion, the grievance of the petitioners that the corporation does not want to assess the land now as vacant land but land under construction, is not well founded. The words “land under construction” to be found in the show cause notice have been used merely to describe the property. Whether the corporation can change and revise assessment because the utility of land is improved, in our opinion is the question that has to be decided by the corporation on objection being raised in that regard by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case in our opinion the following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER. I) The corporation to supply copies of reports in relation to the subject matter of the show cause notices which are impugned in this petition, within a period of two weeks from today. ii) The learned counsel for the Corporation has 8 stated before the Court that petitioner can collect the compilation of report at any time after l7.08.2009. Iii) The petitioners shall lodge their objection/complaint pursuant to the show cause notices, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the report. The corporation thereafter shall pass orders in accordance with law. iv) It is made clear that the petitioners would be entitled to raise objection that the Corporation is not empowered to change assessment in this fashion and also with reference to the dates they are proposing to change. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)