m1 &1 L IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR:C.G. W.P.flo. S'96 /2002 PETITIONER: Hmdustaa Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Regional office, above Vijaya Bank, Shaheed Hemu Kalani ChowJi:,Raipur,C.G. VERSUS. RESPONDENTS : Municipal Corporation, Durg, C.G. 2. Tpjst Shri Laxmi Narayan Maharaj Killa Mandir ^irough managmg trostee Shri Vinod Kumai Agarwal, advocate, at Baniya pas^,Dva'g,,C.G. ^°* ..l-J**" „;'•;' ,. ^-*feWrit petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. _A»-r.__.__,._._, ^^5 .^5^^' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITP_ETjT!C>N N& 846_OF 2002 Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Versus Municipal Corporation, Durg & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriAvinashMishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Das, Advocate forthe respondentNo.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedonthis7thdayofJuly,2010) . 1. ' By this petition, the petitioner seeksto quash the demand of notice dafed 16/02/2000 (AnnexureP/2) and th.e memo dated 13/02/2002 (Annexure P/4) whereby the respondent Municipal Corporation directed the petitioner to deposit the property tax in respect of Dhodhy Service Station (Petrol Pump). 2. Shri Kinger, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 1964, the petitioner is lessee of respondent No.2 in respect of.plot ,.-£ . ..---. .. . . . „ .--, <;P admeasuringlSO ft. on amonthly rentofRs.450/-. Lateron, it was increased to Rs.600/- per month. The rights and duties ofthe lessee and lessor are governed and control by the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated12th June 1964 (Annexure P/1). According to the said agreemenf, the respondent No.2 is liable and duty bound to pay all the taxes. 3. According to Shri Kinger, on 16/02/2000, the respondent Corporation issued a demand notice demanding paymenfofRs.69,111/- toward arrears of certain taxes. The petitioner replied the same on 08/01/2002 through its advocate mentioning that the respondent Corporation ought to have realizedi the outstanding dues from the' 1.1 f ! J j !; i' .U-MuK .-.f-Sl 'M^r-w ^".^1'3?^ 6. respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the land, not from the petitioner. Thereafter, on 13/02/2002, the respondent Corporation issued a memo to the petitioner stating that if the outstanding dues are not clear then the warrant of attachment would follow. Thus. this petition. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 Corporation, submits that necessary notice aTid demand would be raised in accordance with law to the owner and thereafter to the tenant/occupier ofthe property in dispute also. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Itu Rani Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/pwner of the land in dispute, submits that it is not necessary to give a notice before assessment of property tax to the owner or any other tenant except the occupier, as sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") provides for notice to occupier alone. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It appears that the land in dispute wherein the petrol pump of the petitioner is located belongs to the respondent No.2. Clause 3 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 provides that the landlord agrees to pay and discharge all existing and future Government, Municipal or other rents, cesses, rates, taxes and assessment payable in respect of the demised land excepting those mentioned in Clauses 2 (b) (c) and (d) to avoid attachment of the property. Clause 3 (a) ofthe agreement reads as under: "3 (a) To pay and discharge all existing and future Government, Municipal or other rents, cesses, rates, taxes and assessment payable in ly'} ;(K' ^\ "'»•»•;, respect of the demised land excepting those mentioned in Clauses 2 (b), (c) and (d) hereof." 9. Clauses 2 (b) (c) and (d) of the agreement read as under: "2 (b) To obtain and renew all necessary licences and permits in respect of the demised premises by reasons of their being used for storing, selling or otherwise carrying on trade in petrol, petroleum products, oil and kindred motor accessories and To observe and perform all local police and Municipal rules and regulations in connection with uses. (c) To pay the premium and additional land revenue, if any, in respect of an area of 180' x 20' included within the demised premises and in respect of which permission to divert from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes has not yet been received. (d) To pay all charges for gas or electricity consumed in or upon the demised premises as shown by the separate meter or meters thereof and to pay the rent of such meter or meters." 10. It is evident that the respondent No.2 landlord wants to avoid payment of property tax and, as such, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 that the payment has to be raised to the occupier is contrary to provisions of law. 11. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is noticed to be rejected, as it appears that the learned counsel has completely ignored the provisions of. sub-section (1) of Section 141 oftheAct, 1956. 12. Section 141 oftheAct, 1956 reads as under: "141. Responsibility for payment of property tax.- (1) The property tax charged and levied upon any land or building under Section 135, shall be paid primarily by the owner thereof. (2) The property tax charged and levied on the owner may also be recovered from any occupier of the land or building under the circumstances, in the manner cn" -,1 '••<. and to the extent as is provided in this Act or may be provided under the bye- laws or rules made thereunder." 13. Bare perusal of entire provisions of Section 141 oftheAct, 1956, it is clear that the property tax is charged and levied upon any land or building primarily by the owner. If there is any difficulty in collecting the tax from the owner, the same may be recovered from the occupier of the land also. 14. The respondent No.l/Municipal Corporation without raising a demand notice under the provisions of Section 141 of theAct, 1956 to the owner issued a letter to Dhodhy Service Station (Petrol Pump), which is running petrol pump on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter, by memo dated 13-2-2002 (Annexure - P/4) it was directed to deposit the property tax. 15. In view of foregoing, the demand notice dated 16/02/2002 (Annexure P/2) and the memo dated 13/02/2002 (Annexure P/4) are quashed. However, the respondent No.l/Corporation is directed to issue fresh notice to the land owner, tenant and occupier of the property in dispute for proper assessment of property tax, in accordance with law and after receipt of the reply from the aforesaid persons, the assessment can be done with effect from the date it is due. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Uown Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge