1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6316 Of 2005 Ahmednagar Jilha Madhyawarti Grahak Seva Maha Sangh. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri. V.S. Bedre holding for Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. Order reserved on : 04th November 2009 Order pronounced on : 10th November 2009. ORDER (Per Naresh H Patil, J.): 1) This petition is pending since the year 2005 at the admission stage. The petitioner is mainly questioning the assessment of property prepared for the years 1995 – 2001 by respondents Nos.4,5 and 6. 2 2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in (1) The Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, AIR 1962 SC 151 (V 49 C 28); and, (2) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2998, the Municipal Corporation ought to have assessed the property taxes which had not been done accordingly. Three fold increase of property tax which was not approved by the in-house committee of the Municipal Corporation itself, was an illegal act committed by the Municipal Corporation. 3) Affidavit-in-reply was filed by respondent No.1 – Collector Dr. P. Anbalagan and respondent No.3 District Project Officer, Nagar Palika Branch, Collectorate. We have perused the affidavits-in-reply filed. 4) The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 has invited our attention to an 3 order dated 27-3-2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1062 of 2002 wherein identical issues were raised which was treated as a Public Interest Litigation. The counsel has also invited our attention to the order passed in a group of writ petitions by a Division Bench of this Court on 30-7-2001. We have perused the same. 5) It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that there is efficacious statutory remedy available to the property owners and many of them have availed of such remedies and are benefited also. 6) Considering the facts of the case, the replies filed and the fact that an identical issue has already been raised in a petitioin which is pending we find that the aggrieved persons had alternate efficacious statutory remedy which could be availed of. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation 4 submitted that the Municipal Corporation would exercise powers of revision of property taxes in accordance with law and in case if a property holder has grievance regarding revision of the assessment of taxes then adequate remedy is provided in law which we find is adequate. In stead of admitting the petition to be heard along with the already admitted petitions being Writ Petition No.1062 of 2002 we propose to dispose of the petition in view of the observations made by us as above. 7) The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6316.05