( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APEAL NO. 405 OF 1993 Janardhan s/o Arjun Kandhare, R/o Prabhatnagar, Nanded. APPELLANT VERSUS Nanded Municipal Council, Nanded through its Chief Officer, Nanded RESPONDENT ..... Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Murar Deshpande, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th November, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nanded in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 110/1987). By the impugned judgement, learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and was pleased to set aside injunction decree granted in favour of the appellant (plaintiff). ( 2 ) 2. Indisputably, the appellant is owner and possessor of a house property. He allegedly purchased the open plot in 1979 and constructed a house property thereon after obtaining construction permission from Group Gram Panchayat, Nasratpur. His case before the trial Court was that the house property is situated at village Jangamwadi, which is not included within jurisdiction of Nanded Municipal Council. However, the Municipal Council attempted to collect house property tax from him as per Income Tax demand notice (Exh-32). He was not liable to pay the property tax to the Municipal Council. Consequently, he filed suit for declaration that the property tax bill submitted by the Municipal Council is illegal, improper and liable to be quashed. He also sought perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Council from effecting illegal recovery of the property tax on basis of invalid bill. 3. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) decreed the suit whereas the first Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. Hence, the second appeal. ( 3 ) 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. While admitting the second appeal, grounds No. II, IV, VII, VIII, IX and XIV were considered as substantial questions of law. 6. As a matter of fact, upon hearing learned counsel, the only substantial question of law involved in this second appeal is as follows : “Whether the first Appellate Court committed patent error while reaching conclusion that village Jangamwadi is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nanded Municipal Council and, therefore, the property tax bill could be served on the appellant and he was liable to pay such taxes ?” 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is owner of house property, situated at village Jangamwadi. What emerges from the record and evidence of the parties is that village Jangamwadi was part and parcel of Group Gram Panchayat consisting of in all four villages, namely, Nasratpur, Hapsapur, Jangamwadi and Asadullabad. A copy of the Government ( 4 ) Gazette dated 05-01-1961 purports to show that by virtue of notification, the Commissioner, Aurangabad Division was pleased to declare that the above four villages were within the Group Gram Panchayat consisting of the said villages as constituents. This notification dated 05-01-1961 purports to show that village Jangamwadi was included in the Group Gram Panchayat of Nasratpur and others. It is further stated in the Government Notification dated 01-07-1981 (Exh-38) that because village Asadullabad was within the municipal limits since 1344 Fasli (1935 A.D.), it was required to be deleted from the names of villages included in the Group Gram Panchayat as per notification dated 28-12-1962. The entry was rectified by the learned Divisional Commissioner. 8. Clinching question is whether village Jangamwadi was within the municipal limits of the respondent No.1 - Municipal Council when the impugned demand notice was served on the appellant. It is pertinent to notice that at bottom of the notification dated 01-07-1987, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, ( 5 ) reason for deleting name of Asadullabad from the Group Gram Panchayat is indicated as the said village had merged within the limits of Municipal Council since 1344 Fasli. Thus, the purport of subsequent notification (Exh-38) was to rectify the mistake committed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad while including the village Asadullabad. It appears that the demand notice was served on the appellant because he was liable to pay the municipal tax to the Municipal Council in view of such rectification of the record. It reveals from the true copy of the development plan (Exh-30) that Survey No. 13 of Jangamwadi falls within the limits of Nanded Municipal Council. On perusal of the development plan, it appears that part of village Jangamwadi is included in the area of Municipal Council, Nanded. It further reveals that Survey No. 13 is included within the municipal area of Nanded. The house of the appellant is, admittedly, situated in the area of Survey No. 13/1 of village Jangamwadi. 9. The limits of Nanded Municipal Council came to be fixed way back in 1934 Fasli. On perusal of copy of ( 6 ) relevant Govt. Resolution dated 13-08-1344 Fasli, it is explicit that Survey No. 13 of village Jangamwadi, in which the house property in question is situated, was part and parcel of the area covered by the Municipal Council. The learned Additional District Judge noticed this old record. It is quite clear, therefore, that there was no need to issue further notification under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act to include village Jangamwadi’s land Survey No. 13 within municipal limits of Nanded Municipal Council because it was already included therein in 1935 A.D. The old map and the notification have presumptive value. Considering these aspects, the view taken by the first Appellate cannot be termed as perverse. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa405-93 ( 7 )