1 WP 7695.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7695 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 30/11/2011. Mr. K.N.Lokhande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C.Garud, Advocate for the Respondent. ............................. PER COURT : 1. The present respondent had filed Municipal Tax Appeal [ For short, ‘ M.T.A. ’ ] No. 217 of 1996 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ahmednagar U/s 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act [ For short, ‘ B.P.M.C. Act ’ ]. The said M.T.A. was allowed. Against that, the present petitioner preferred Appeal before the District Court. The District Judge – 7, Ahmednagar dismissed the said Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Lokhande, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the rateable value was assessed as per the directions issued by the Court in M.T.A. No. 217 of 2 WP 7695.2011 1996. In such circumstances, when the ratable value was fixed as per the directions given in M.T.A. No. 217 of 1996, then the Court could not have intervened and set aside the same. The petitioner had followed the complete procedure for assessing the rateable value and thereafter had levied the same. The present respondent had subsequently constructed 2nd and 3rd floor, which is also proved by the Commissioner's report. In view of the additional construction, the petitioner had rightly assessed the ratable value. This aspect has not been considered by the Court. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders. 4. The directions were given by the Court in M.T.A. No. 217 of 1996. None of the parties adduced evidence. When the procedure for levy of assessment of rateable value was challenged, it was for the petitioner to prove that proper procedure as is laid down under the provisions of the B.P.M.C. Act for assessing ratable value is followed. The Court has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and has passed the Judgment. The District Court has also on assessing all the material before it, has dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment of the first Court. The Court has also considered the Commissioner’s report and Schedule ‘ A ’ of the respective 3 WP 7695.2011 years. The Court after taking into consideration the additional construction, has increased the ratable value commensurate with the construction value. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 7695.2011