1 (WP825/95) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 1995 Smt. Jamnabai w/o Laduram Bothara and others .... Petitioners. V/s The Municipal Council of Igatpuri, District Nashik .... Respondents. Mr. A.R. Shaikh i/b V.Z. Kankaria for the Petitioners. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th June, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik who was pleased to partly reject the Revision Application No.50 of 1991 and pass the order fixing ratable value at Rs 3440/- per month. 3. Brief facts are that the Petitioners are owners of municipal house No.136 in Ward No.5, Igatpuri. Initially, the said house was assessed at Rs 1500/- per annum. However, 2 (WP825/95) in 1974, the assessment was revised and the house was assessed at Rs 1560/-. The grievance of the Petitioners is that in spite of the fact that 1/5th share of the house was allotted to Bansilal Bothra and their share was assessed at Rs 1296/-, the Corporation assessed the said house at Rs 5160/-. Against the said order, appeal was filed and the appeal was partly allowed by the JMFC, Igatpuri and the assessment was reduced from Rs 5160/- to Rs 3440/-. The contention of the Petitioners is that the house ought to have been assessed at Rs 1296/- and not at Rs 3440/- and, therefore, Criminal Revision Application was filed in the Sessions Court, Nashik. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the Revision Application and the order passed by the JMFC was confirmed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had given one half area on rent and, as such, the assessment could have been made only in respect of remaining area and not on the entire area. He submitted that the authorities ignored this fact and, therefore, had committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. 5. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners cannot be accepted. The Sessions Court in revision has observed that the Petitioners did not produce on record any document to show how the assessment made by the competent authority was wrong. 3 (WP825/95) The Sessions Court has also observed that there was nothing on record to show as to what area was in possession of tenant and what area was occupied by the Petitioners. Revisional Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority. 6. In my view, the Sessions Court was justified in dismissing the revision application and, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (WP825/95)