1 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2539 OF 1994 1. Bapurao S/o Rangnath Adhav Age : Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. 2. Dr. Gopikishan Mangilal Bangad Age : Major, Occ. Medical Practitioner R/o : Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Dy. Director Town Planning and Valuation Department, Aurangabad. 3. The Municipal Council Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna Through its Chief Officer Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna ..... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent no. 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15/06/2010 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05/08/2010 JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner vide the present petition challenges assessment and the levy of property tax for the year 1993-94 to his house at village Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. 2. The petitioner claims that they hold house properties. According to them, respondent no. 3 without following the provisions of law, has assessed and imposed exorbitant property tax for the year 1993-94. The representations were given to the Collector to reduce the taxes but to no avail. 3. The respondents have filed their affidavit and denied the averments of the petitioner. According to them, the procedure as laid down under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 ( For short, ' said Act ' ) and Maharashtra Municipalities ( Consolidated Property Tax ) Rules, 1969 ( For short, ' said Rules ' ) have been scrupulously followed. The petitioners could not put forth any specific instance of violation of a legal provision in assessing and levying the property tax. 3 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) 4. We have heard Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 5. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the levy of property tax being part of the taxing Statute, the provisions and the procedure as laid down have to be strictly followed, any violation thereof would vitiate the very act of imposition of property tax. 6. The objections raised by the petitioners were not properly considered and have increased the tax manifold. 7. The rate of tax has been increased in violation of Section 112 of the said Act and Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules. 8. The provisions of Section 123 and 124 of the property tax have been violated while determining the ratable value. 9. The assessment list has not been properly prepared. Hypothetical rent has been taken into consideration as against the standard rent. The same is against the dictum of the Apex Court. In case of Municipal Council, Khurai and another V/s Kamal Kumar and another reported in AIR 1965 - Supreme Court - 1321 and Mrs. Shiela Kaushish 4 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) V/s The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in AIR 1981 - Supreme Court - 1729. 10. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that total procedure as laid down under the said Act and Rules has been adhered by the Municipal Council and thereafter only the property tax has been assessed and levied. The necessary resolutions have been passed for increasing the property tax @ 5 % of the ratable value of the property. Thereafter the same was notified. That as the total procedure has been followed, no fault can be found in the levy of the property tax. The Municipal Council has the necessary authority to levy the property tax and as such this Court may not entertain the present petition. 11. We have perused the documents and the pleadings of the parties. The bone of contention of the petitioners is that the procedure as laid down has not been complied, so also the property tax has been exorbitantly increased and no proper hearing has been given to the petitioners. The procedure as is laid down for preparation of the assessment list, fixing the ratable value and increasing the rate of tax, has not been complied. 12. On perusal of the affidavit in reply and the documents, it is 5 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) clear that respondent no. 3 issued notification dated 16/11/1992 inviting objections in respect of the assessment list on or before 16/12/1992. The same was published in weekly ' Bhukamp ' dated 17/11/1992. It was also displayed on the notice board of the Municipal Council. One more opportunity was given to the petitioners and other persons who had not raised objections previously to the provisional assessment list to raise objection vide notification dated 21/1/1993. The assessment list was kept for perusal of public and the objections to the said assessment list published were also invited. Thereafter, those who had raised the objections, individual notices were given to them and date of hearing of 23/9/1993 and 24/9/1993 was given. Accordingly, the authorized Valuation Officer personally heard the said objections and thereafter made the assessment list final on 13/12/1993 and the same was authenticated. Thereafter only the demand notices were published. 13. The petitioners under the petitions have nowhere stated that as to what was the actual fair rent in the said area. In absence of a specific averment with regard to the actual fair rent/standard rent, it will not be possible to come to the conclusion that the ratable value has been hypothetically fixed. 14. Thus, it would be seen that the whole procedure has been 6 W.P. 2539/1994 - ( J ) followed. The rate of tax was also the same which was levied since 1991. The opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. 15. In view of all the above facts, it can not be said that no procedure as laid down under the Statute was not followed. Every endeavour was made to follow the procedure for assessment and the levy of the property tax and the same has been followed. 16. In view of said premise, we do not see any illegality in the imposition of the property tax for the year 1993-94. 17. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2539.94