B" ^^f k*'<< ^l l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 'l^ BETITIONER f 'f. RESPONDENT 1V-J C.R..No.....g.^-..../2006 ... .(1) UMESH CHAND YADU aged about50 years. (2) ASHOK KUMAR YADU, ' aged about 49 Years. Both Sons of Late Bansilal Yadu. (3) Smt. DULARI YADU, widow ( of Late Shri Bansilal Yadu, aged about 70 years. All residents of Lodhipara, Raipur(C.G.). VERSUS 1 Smt. SHYAMBATI Widow of Late Shri Murlidhar. Shri GANESHCHAND ,YADU. (3) Shri SURESHCHAND YADU. S^(4) Shri NAND KISHORE YAD.. Shri NIRMAL KUMARYADU. l6)ShriDEEPAKKUMAR YADU. All sons of Late Shri Murlidhar Yadu and residents of Station Road, Lodhipara, Raipur, C.G. (7)COMMISSIONER, ' MunicipalCorporation, Raipur, Office of Municipal Corp. Malviya Road, Raipur. Q,(8) Smt. SHASHIBALAYADU, -^ widowof Late Shri HemrajYadu, resident of Lodhipara, Raipur, C.G. -2- -2- CIViL REVISIOON UNDER SECTION'1l5_OF_CODE_OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. h' s^^0 ^^xv HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVILREVISIQNNQ.^7QF2QQ6 ,M PETITIONERS Umesh Chand Yadu and others Versus RESPONDBNTS Smt. Shyambati and ofhers ORDER Postfors^ -1-2010 Sd/- ^- K, Agarwal Judge HIGH COUFRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVILJREVISION No. 87 OF 2006 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Umesh Chand Yadu and others Versus Smt. Shyambati and ofhere SINGLB BENCH:- Hon. Sbri N.K. Agarwal, J PRBSENT:- Shri O.D. Waswani, Adv. for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Saurabh Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No. 1 to 6. Shri Paiikaj Agrawal, Adv. for respondent No- 7. ORDBR {S.\ -1-2010) 1. Challenge in this revision is to the legality and propriety of the order dated 28-2-2006 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 5/2005 whereby and whereunder the appeal prefen'ed by the appticant has been dismissed as not maintainable under Section 149 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (briefly, the Acf). 2. Fact offhe case, in brief, are as under:- 3. Accordtng to the applicants, house situated at Station Road, Raipur belongs to late Mohanlal Yadu and Muralidhar Yadu i.e. two brofhers. Mohanlal Yadu died issueless. His widow Maharajm Bai had gifted her undivided share in fhe aforesaid house to Banshilal Yadu. After death of Muralidhar Yadu, an appMcation for mutation of their name tn his place was preferred, public notice inviting objections was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. In response to fhat notice, the appUcants also llled an application for mutation oftlieir names m places ofMohanlal Yadu. Botfa the applications were separatety rcgistered and were disposed of by common order dated 7-3-2005 by fhe Municipal Corporation, whereby the application preferred by legal representatives of Muralidhar was allowed. Applicants' ^ % .. I ,f .^ s ^^' ^ ^ (. application was disatlowed on the ground fhat as per municipal record, earlier the only name of late Muralidhar Yadu was recorded. The appeal preferred there-against was dismissed by fhe appellate Court on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 149 of fhe Act. Because tlie instaiit appeal has been preferred challen^ng the mutation order which has been decided by the Municipal C/orporation under Section 167 of fhe Act and mutation order passed under Section 167 of the Act is not made appellable under Section 149 ofAct. 4. Shd Vaswaai, leamed counsel for the applicants would submit that property tax assessment list is prepared and maiiitained as per reqiiirement of Section 151 of ti.ie Act. Powers have been given to aiaend the said list under Section 153 of fhe Act to the Commissioner. While exercising such power to amend the assessment Ust, the Commissioner has also power to amend the name of fhe owner of fhe building as tfae same is also part of assessment list. During process of amendment ofassessment list in tenns ofSection 153 by the Commissioner, if any person on whom a notice is served, raises written objection, then in view ofSection 153(2) ofthe Act, the provisions contained under Sections 148 to 149 shall, with all necessary modtfications, apply to such objection and any order passed with regard to such objection is appellable under Section 149 of the Act. He would further submit that Section 167 of the Act requires legal representative of the deceased person in whom title to aiiy land or building or in any part or share of any land or building vests, to give notice of his title to Commissioner in writing. Said section does not confer any authority to the Commissioner to pass any order wifh regard to mutation of their name m the municipal records. The order has to be passed by the Commissioner in terms of Section 153 of the Act. The assessment list which is reqmred to be prepared and maintalned under Section 151 ofthe Act, also contains tlie name and place of abode of the owner and tlie name of j 3 'V i \. "^€/ .^.-fS^y' occupier, meaning thereby any amendment or correction in tlie assessment list includes amendment/correction of the entry wifh regard to owner/occupier and, therefore, learned Court below went wrong in dismissmg tiie appeal as not maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon fhe judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in fhe case of Ramdwarikalal Aea'awal -v- Krishaa Dwarikalal Afia'awal reported in 1982 MPLJ Note 54. 5. Per contra, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed coiinsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6 would submit fhat the langu^e of Section 149 of fhe Act is unambiguous and clear and if any dispute arises as to tlie liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to amouut of tax assessed, then only an appeal shall lie to District Court under Section 149 of the Act. Any person dissatisfied with a valuation made under this chapter may deliver a written notice stating grounds of his objection to such valuation. The same objection is required to be investigated by the Commissioner under Section 148 of the Act and there-against only appeal under Section 149 of fhe Act is available and not upon the orders passed by fhe Commissioner on any other objection raised by any persons, fherefore, the provision of section 149 of fhe Act is conlmed to fhe decision of the Commissioner under Section 148 of the Act. For this, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of The BSunicipal Corporation, Jabalpur -v- Shri Radhakrishna Pandev reported in 1969 MPLJ 325. He further pj^ced reliance upon para 49 and 50 of fhe FuU Bench judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sakhi Gooal AerawaS and others -v- State of M.P. and others reported in 2004 (1) MPLJ 390. 6. The question arises for decision making in the instant revision is whether ttie written objection/application for mutation under Section 167 of the Act which was decided by ^ <r T .^;^3 ^^% ^ 1 •^^^ fhe Commissioner is appellable or not under Section 149 of the Act. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties. 8. Before entering mto the facts of fhe present case, it is necessary to look into the scheme of the Act and relevant statutory provisions with regard to property tax. Part IV, Chapter XI of the Act deals with taxation which contains Section 132 to Section 172. Sections 135 to 159 deal with Property Tax and Sections 160 to 172 are supplementary provisions. Section 141 of fhe Act deals with responsibility for payment of property tax. Section 143 deals with assessment of annual value and duration of assessment. Section 147 deals with notice of objection of valuation. Section 148 deals with investigation of objectious by Commissioner. Section 149 provides for appeals to District Courts. Section 151 provides for keeping of mmiicipal assessment list. Section 153 empowers fhe Commissioner to amend assessment list. Section 167 casts a duty upon ti^nsferee or legal representative of the deceased on wliom land or buildtng vests to give notice of transfer or inheritance so as to enable the Corporation to recover tax from the right person. 9. A conjoint reading of Section 151, 153 and 167 of the Act would reveal that to keep fhe assessment list update, the transferees are required to give written Tiotice and after following procedure as prescribed under Section 153(1) of the Act, Commissioner is required to pass order of amendment m the assessment list which is made appellable under Section 149 of the Act in tenns of Section 153(2) of the Act. In view of the above, any application made under Section 167 would be only for the purpose of keepiag assessment list in order and to facilitate recoveiy of the property tax, responsibility for its payment and for that purpose, if any application / objection has been made under Section 167 of the Act, ftie same has to be decided under Section 153(2} of the Act, which is appellable under Section 149 ofthe Act. The piirpose of application mider Section 167 of the Act is confined to hold the person liable for fhe purpose ofkeeping assessment list tn order and its recovery from the person. This aspect of fhe matter has not been considered by the leamed Court below while rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. M.P. High Court iii Ramdwarikalal Agrawal (supra) has held in its judgment as under:- UIt is clearfrom the lcmguage of sub^ectbns (1) and (2) o/ Section 153, M.P. Municipal Corporation Act that persons interested, to whom notice is issued, can make their objection not merely when the proposed change relates to valuation but also when it relatcs to any matter mentioned in the assessment list. The words esuch objection" as they occur towards the end in sub- section (2) refer to all objections which can befUed under sub-section (2) and which may relate to an-y matter in the assessment. It is true that secUons 148 and 149 are limited to objectioizs relating to valuation when the assessment list is in preparation, and it is for this reason that when these sections have been made applicable to objections contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 153, it has been stated that they shall appl-y a with all necessary modifications". The intention is clear that whatever may be the natu.re of the objections made under sub-section (2) ofSection 153, the procedure laid down under sections 148 and 149 will apply to such objections in the same way as it applies regarding objectvons to vcduation madc during the preparation ofthe cissessment list It is not possible to limit the applicability of Sections 148 and 149 in the context ofsection 153(3) only to objections regarding valuation entered in the assessment list When therefore the objection is regarding the owner's name in the assessment list, and the Administrator acttng under M Section 153 passes an order changing the name ofthe owner in the assessment list, section 149 is attracted and the order is appUcable under Section 149 oftheAct. 10. I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the M.P. High Court in fhe above referred case. So far as the case cited by learned counsel for the respondents is concemed, the case of Municioal Corporation, Jabalpur (supra) was a case m which the question posed was whether an appeal lies under Section 149(1) of the Act on fhe question of assessment of property tax or it also lies against the assessment of conservancy tax. By dealing wifh fhe question, it has been held fliat the objection does not include objections to assessment of conservancy tax under Section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the same is not appellable under Section 149 of fhe Act. In the said case, scope and ambit of Sections 151, 153, 167 and Section 149 of the Act was not under consideration before the Court and fhe same is not applicable here in fhe facts and circumstances ofthe present case. The decision of Full Bench in case of Sakhi Gopal Aerawal cited by Shri Agrawal is also of no help to him. as tn fhat case also, the scope and ambit of Sections 151, 153, 167 and 149 of the Act was not under consideration. 11. It is no doubt true that appeal imder Section 149 of the Act lies against the order passed under Section 148 of the Act. It is also no doubt true that Sections 148 and 149 are Umited to objections relating to valuation when the assessment Ust is in preparation and it is for fhis reason fhat when fhese sections have been made appUcable to objections contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 153 of the Act, it has been stated fhat fhey shall apply "with all necessary modtfications". The intention is clear that whatever may be the nature of objections made under sub-section (2) of Section 153, the procedure laid down imder sections 148 and 149 will apply to such objections in the same way as it applies regarding obja;tions to valuation made during the preparation of the assessment Mst When therefore, the objection is regarding the owner's name in the assessment list, and Commissioner acting under Section 153 passes an order changing ttie naine of owner in fhe assessment list, Section 149 is attracted and the order is applicable under Section 149 ofthe Act. 12. In view of fhe above, in fhe considered opinion of this Court, the appeal preferred by the applicant is maintainable. Leamed Court below has erred in dismissing the same as not matntainable under Section 149 of the Act The unpugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back for deciding the said appeal m accordance with law on its own merits. 13. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ 9/