1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 240 of 1999 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.241 OF 1999 Date of decision: 7/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/240-99crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.240 of 1999 The Municipal Council Jalgaon, Through its Chief Officer. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Madhukar s/o Bhikaji Ambodkar, Age 55 years, occ. Advocate, r/o. 313, Joshipeth, Jalgaon, tq. & dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... None for the petitioner. Mr.Pramod S.Gaikwad, Adv., h/f Mr. A.G.Talhar, Adv., for sole respondent. ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.241 OF 1999 The Municipal Council Jalgaon, Through its Chief Officer. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 3 Abdul Wahab s/o Shaikh Juman, Age 60 years, occ. Advocate, r/o 362, Shanipeth (Katya File), Jalgaon, tq. & dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... None for the petitioner. Mr.Pramod S.Gaikwad, Adv., h/f Mr. A.G.Talhar, Adv., for sole respondent. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Both the writ petitions arise out of levy of Municipal taxes to the owners of the property - respective respondents Madhukar Ambodkar and Abdul Wahab. 2. The owner Madhukar, being aggrieved by levy of house property tax, filed appeal No. 3/1996. The same was accepted requiring interference and the appeal of Madhukar was allowed. Same was challenged by Municipal Council in revision before the Sessions Judge at Jalgaon. The learned Sessions Judge at Jalgaon did not agree for payment of costs but maintained annual letting value as fixed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Rs.916/- by order dt. 13.4.1999. Being aggrieved by this order of the 4 learned revisional Court the Municipal Council is in the writ petition. 3. In the matter of Abdul Wahab ( WP No. 241/1999), it is identical situation. Appeal No.1/1996 was preferred by him. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, fixed the same at Rs. 600/-. It was tested in revision by the Municipal Council, however, the order was confirmed and hence, Municipal Council is in the writ petition. 4. It was contended that the learned Judge committed error in appreciating import of provisions of Sections 105 and 114 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. 5. The assessment of the documents by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, giving reference to respective measurements, the age, the cement and mortar used cannot be said to be flowing out of context of the record. The learned Judge found that the Municipal Council has applied different yardstick for calculating the assessment. In the situation, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5 6. Both the Criminal Writ Petitions lack merit. The same are, dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/240-99crwp