y N- << .^- HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Cjyjl RevisionNo.193of2004 Mahesh Soni versus Premji Rao and another ORDER Postfor ZZ-Q4-2008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge '^ h <<- ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Civil Revision No.193 of 2004 Applicant Respondent Non-ApplJcants versys Mahesh Soni, S/o Shankar Rao Sonj, aged about 35 years, R/o Ganesh Chowk (Nandi Chowk) Tikrapara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Premji Rao, S/o late Balchand Rao Dhote, aged about 57 years, R/o Ganesh Chowk, (Nandi Chowk) Tikrapara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Rajpur (C.G.) APPELLANT Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur Through- The Commjssioner. Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENT Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the applicant. Shri M.D.Dhote, counsel for non-applicant No.1. No one appears for non-applicant No.2. ORDER (Passed on ^^ day of April, 2008) In thjs civil revision, the order passed by the Ist Additiona! District Judge, Raipur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.3/03 on 27-10-2004 is under challenge. (2) Brief facts are that the applicant Mahesh Soni filed an application before the revenue ofRcer jn charge of Zone No.5, Raipur for mutation of his name over houses No.623 and 623/1 situated in Shahid Brigadier Usman, Ward No.41, Tikrapara. Raipur. On issuance of publication, non- applicant No.1, Premji Rao preferred an objection and prayed that houses No.623 and 623/1 were owned by late Shankar Rao, brother of his grand father and being the sole heir of late Shankar Rao, his name ought to be mutated over the suit property. (3) The competent officer of the Municjpal Corporation, Raipur (henceforth 'the competent officer') by order dated 20-06-2003 directed non-applicant No.1, Premji Rao to seek a declaration of title from a competent civil Court whjle rejecting the application of the applicant Mahesh Soni. Being aggrieved, Premji Rao preferred Miscellaneous CMI Appeal No.3/03 before the Ist Additional District Judge, Raipur in which the order passed by the competent officer of the munidpal corporation was set aside and a direction was jssued to mutate the name of Premji Rao over houses No.623 and 623/1 situated in Shahid Brigadier Usman, Ward No.41, Tikrapara, Raipur. The learned Ist Actditjonal District Judge, Raipur recorded the following reasons in paragraphs 11 to 14 for passing the jmpugned order, which read as under: "11. ^!\j1lW 3ri6tcb|5l ^FR Mtf?lcb f^PPT ^T ^O 5 Njt^t^ ^TTT f^rra? 15-10-2002 cRt ^Nr irgtr c^ wf^fr 'CBT ^^r f^ ^Jf^^ "^ «nr? v? i^f^i fesff t f^ \jr<Tt^cit<{) cpo 2 ^%? ^Nt CRT f^rr sNtcTTSff iP^t ^^ ^) "?RT Wf^ "i?ra" S^ ^ ^€f?Fr "^ ^t^cil^! c^ t^TcT ^ ^^T %n I ^ra^ ^? ^ ^WrPT8T 13^ 4lRsi* WCT ^ c;tWi^^ W8^T c^ ST^TR 1T7 3T(fra7^ff ^R^t ^ra' ^ ^T&T c^r :R^H ?^TT f^RH ^TOT t W9T ^t ^^ ^S ^> ^Q ^ f^HT^S TJyft ?yf ^ ^R ^?f^cT ^r ci^ \jMyi^ii c^ ^qf f | WST ^ sR^ cpT f^R ?^ •CR ogcT^R "yiAttd-'.t ^T ^TWT •^tl-yid-y yTT?r c^ ^tt^T •37:ftj^ sfr? ^ ^t ^ t l ^ft sn^ ^> ffcCT^ ^r f^rits - 20-6-2003 cRt wrl^r ^TcpFT c&O 623 ^ 623/1 c^ WKT ^ WO ^fcl^ ^raT 'gT^: ^T NSaRri^cCT^ ?T^ cRT OTTOT ^TgpT ^-ll^id^l ^ ^ccl^RlcDi^ yHl^tM^ y^r ci^r i^ Pi^a ten ^rar t i 12. WO ?fc^? ^? ^ t^ if^H c^ f^TP^ tft iTO^O^T-l ^ TO^01iFT-2 ;?PP? 41^)cb f^PW WT^? ^NT fe3T ^RTT t I ^ft ?cpP? f^cjlf^d 1TcSFT cf)T ^ 'sTkjRq' 3rftcrrNt/3TTq1:^ci^Tf ^^ ~^i ^ TO^O^TO 11 ^ 90^0^0-12 ^T?T $cRT ^T -ymH f^qT t ylt ZT? '^^11 f^ viM^cw ^r^Fr c{?r ^gpft ^ ^r wo ?ra^ "i?ra" st^ ^, ^TR ^ Y5^c^| ^ ^ IT? ^aRT&cCT^ €^ -^T ^r 3NtcTT^t/3<t4latcbdl llT^t ^Q \JM^ch1 1q^>TrT c^ WPft t I 13. \JnlN'<1)({l c^O 1 c^ 3T^ ^ ^s^ WS)^ ^. 533/98 ^ STT^ f^TRfr- 20-6-2003 d5t ffS Plfccb^ Ptchtdl ^jff :g<PT t fe f^nfeT '<TcRFT c&O 623 ?cT 623/1 W 33RftcTRff/311Mfa14)dT N^t ^3" cRT cR&ST t 3?Nr ?}? Wif^T 13^ ^T5T WO ?rar? ''CT? ^ ^t ?HT tehm f^ir ^rr ^cCT t i ^f) ^rsw ^i<atd^t ^r ^^RT^CRR y^iuiM^t ?fFr c^ ^m {p^t ^ t l ^? apftcTrsff/arraf^cRif N^ ^ra ^cft}) ?Jt|r? 'iTO ^ cCT qlKff t j '^Tcf? ?fcp;? ^R" ^ (^ ^t wai«iii^FT wrfer ^ cRl^ ^(R ^ zrrecft, \:RC^[ sN ^ srq^ ?'cp ^ wrfaT ^IPT cp^r cj^ ^?trf^r ^t ^IT '^t t i ^t fW^r ^ yrcT) Wfrf ^ra' Sl^ cRT 13aP?Tf^cpN ^M^Icra "q^FT IR 3rftcTTSff/31iMfw1chdi ^T^I" ^ra'c^T ^ f | 3fr? ^T T^^ ^ ^3·:TflCT ^w5TT tft t I X^ft fW^T ^ ^SPT -^IWId^ ^ ^^RT^T? y*1|u|ll^ ff^T W^ ~^ cj^ 3Tra^T3KH ^t t | \J^^c||<{| ^Q 2 1^ ^Nt cBT \5M^|crc| iTcRFT ^? «Rft'? 1iRTPft ^ cRt^ ?c^ ^t f f 14. ^I^W 3^CT'i$t ^PR Mlf^icb f^TFr yN-5 WTg? ^P?T <<ly1'W 1graF^10T "^. 533/98 ^ f^ricR- 20-6-2003 cRt ?T^ Rlitf^Zl^i \3WFT ^ ^O 41 fe*^IMis!t 1?Rr^ f^RT ^TcRPT TO 623 ^ 623/1 c^ ^Nar ^r wo ?ra»? ^ra! %t$ cpr ^(Ti^l^cbi^ ^r ^ WT^RT yl^uiiM^ ^rffpr •^lt'tld^t ^ 18R^T cp^ c^ sff? ^ ^RtcRT ^cRpT TT? 3ritcn%ff/3rr(Tf^ra?<rf ^v^ ^r ^)T ^FT •it^id''!"! d^ ihi^di^ f^ yfT^ ^T vjft 3TT^r inf^T ^IT TTOT t cR- f^to 'WS ^ ^^"i t | 3m: 'ScRT an^ir ^P?RT f?RqT yTrcrr ^ i" Being aggrieved by the impugned order, Mahesh Soni has preferred this civil revision. (4) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant urged that the appeal did not lie as under Section 149 of the ...—^ 4 Chhattisgarh Munidpal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the Act') an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Municjpal Commissioner to the District Court if any dispute arises as to the (jability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to the amount of tax assessed. The order passed by the competent officer directing Premji Rao to seek a dedaration of title from a competent civil Court did not fall within the purview of Section 149(1) of the Act. In this manner, the lower appellate Court had acted withoutjurisdiction. Rellance was placed on The Municipal Coiporation, Jabalpur vs. Shrf Radhakrishna Pancfey, 1969 MPU 325. It was also urged that the question relating to the title of the disputed houses was one within the competence of the cjvil Court and, therefore, the competent officer had rightly directed Premji Rao to seek a declaratjon of title from a competent civit Court. (5) On the other hand, Shri M.D.Dhote, learned counsel appearing for non-appHcant No.1 referred to sub-section (2) of Section 153 of the Act " L^/^f^o^t ^. ^JL tA^>^v^-^C <y»-*^^ co^d^^L^L whjte argujng,that the words "any amendment be made in respect of any matter other than the correction of an arithmetical total" include the question of mutation upon a written objection made before the competent officer. Reliance was placed on Ramdwarikala! Agrawal vs. Krishna DwarikalalAgrawal, 1982 MPU Short Note 54. (6) Having heard the rival contentions, 1 have perused the impugned order as also the order passed by the competent officer. Section 153 of the Act contains the power of Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to amend assessment list by incjusion, omjssion or substitution of any matter other than the correction of an arithmetjcal total. tt reads thus - "153. Power of Commissjoner to amend assessment list. - (1) The Commjssioner may at any time amend the assessment list by the inclusjon, omission or substitution of any matter: Provjded that whenever he proposes to make any amendment in respect of any matter other than the correction of an arithmetical total, he shall before making the amendment, send notice thereof to persons interested and shall allow thirty days to elapse for the making of any objection to the proposed amendment: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shatl empower the Commissioner to vary the valuation of any premise determined on appeal to the District Court. (2) If any amendment be made in respect of any matter other than the correction of arithmetical total, any person on whom a notice is served may object by written application addressed to the Commissjoner and delivered at the Corporation Office before the date fixed in the said notice; and the provisions ofsections 148 and 149 shall with all necessary modifications applyto such objection. (3) When the erection of a new building is completed after the completion of the assessment list, the Commissioner may add the particulars of the building to the list, and jn each the provjsions of seetion 145, 147, 148,149 and 152 shall apply, except that no public notice shall be required. In such a case the assessment shall take effect from the beginning of the quarter following the date on which the building js added to the assessment list or from the date when it is occupied or let, if that is earlier." (7) The words "any amendment be made in respect of any matter other than the correction of an arithmetical total" appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 153 of the Act would include an amendment in the name of the owner of the property in the assessment list and, therefore, when an 6 objection is deci'ded by the amendment either way, it shall be open to appeal under Section 149 of the Act. In the present case also, upon a publication being made on the application filed by the applicant Mahesh Soni, non-applicant No.1, Premji Rao had preferred an objection. The competent ofRcer decided the objection by holding that Premji Rao should seek a declaration of title over the disputed houses from a competent civil Court. Therefore, such an order passed by the competent officer under sub-section (2) of Section 153 ofthe Act js appealabte under Section 149 of the Act. In Raniffwarikalal Agrawal vs. Krfshna Dwarfkalal Agrawal (supra), it was held as under: "Jt is clear from the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 153, M.P. Municipal Corporation Act that persons interested, to whom notice js issued, can make their objections not merely when the proposed change relates to valuation but also when it relates to any matter mentioned in the assessment list. The words "such objection" as they occur towarcis the end in sub-section (2) refer to all objections which can be fited under sub-section (2) and which may relate to any matter jn the assessment list. It is true that sections 148 and 149 are limjted to objections relating to valuation when the assessment list js in preparation, and jt is fbr this reason that when these sections have been made applicable to objections contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 153, it has been stated that they shall apply "with all necessary modifications". The intention is clear that whatever may be the nature of the objections macte under sub-section (2) of Section 153, the procedure laid down under sections 148 and 149 will apply to such objections in the same way as (t applies regarding objections to valuation made during the preparation of fhe assessment list. Jt is not possible to Jimit the applicability of sections 148 and 149 in the context of Section 153(3) only to objectlons regardjng valuation entered in the assessment list. When therefore the objection is regarding the owner's name jn the assessment Jist, and the Administrator :^ </1€" ^ .^-•% 1 JJ ^.1-". acting under Section 153 passes an order changing the name of the owner in the assessment list, Section 149 js attracted and the order is appealable under Sectjon 149 ofthe Act." In view of the above, the objection raised by Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the applicant regarding maintainability of the miscellaneous civil appeal before the Ist Additional District Judge, Raipur falls to the ground. The case of The Munlcipal Corporatfon, Jabalpur vs. Shfi Rsdhakrishna Pandley (supra), relied on by Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishabje as it does not relate to an order passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation under Section 153 of the Act. (8) I have perused the detailed and well-reasoned impugned order passed by the (st Additional District Judge, Raipur. No jurisdictional error js nottoed in the impugned order, whereby the lower appellate Court has J^l^AX^^- ordered-tiiiputatiortof the name of Premjj Rao over houses No.623 and 623/1 sjtuated in Shahid Brigadier Usman, Ward No.41, Tikrapara, Raipur. (9) In this view of the matter, this revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopat