Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
VIJAY KUMAR V/S INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, decided on Friday, July 29, 1988.
[ In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, No.. ] 29/07/1988
Judge(s) : S.K. DUBEY
Advocate(s) : P. Verma, S. Dhanji.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia & Others Versus State of H.P. & Others,   12/04/2017.  

  Rani Versus Prl., Secy., Higher Education Dept. & Others,   04/04/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  D. Mahesh Kumar Versus State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, Rep, by its Principal Secretary & Others,   16/11/2016.  

  Anup Kumar @ Anup Chand Versus Sanatan Dharam Sabha Chhota Shimla (H.P.),   16/11/2016.  

  Simplex Castings Limited Versus Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh, through its General Secretary & Others,   11/05/2016.  

  Ranjan Singh & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others,   19/04/2016.  

  Keshrimal Jain Thru. LRs. Vijay Kumar Jain Versus Indore Municipal Corporation,   08/03/2016.  

  Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others,   29/07/2015.  

  Sunitha Venkatram & Another Versus Divya Rayapati,   30/03/2015.  

  Census Commissioner & Others Versus R. Krishnamurthy,   07/11/2014.  

  M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director M.B. Haja Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government & Others,   12/06/2014.  

  Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Versus Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.,   22/10/2013.  

  Anil Maheshwari & Others Versus State Thr. CBI,   28/05/2013.  

  Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Versus & Others The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai & Others,   21/03/2013.  

  Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Versus The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay,   21/03/2013.  

  State of M.P. & Others Versus Virendra Shankar & Another,   29/01/2013.  

  Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin & Another,   17/07/2012.  

  Avtar Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab & Others,   11/11/2011.  

  Shri Girish Vyas & Others Versus The State of Maharastra & Others,   12/10/2011.  

  P. Chithambaram & Another Versus Managing Director, TAFCORN & Another,   16/09/2011.  

  Narmada Bachao Andolan & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,   11/05/2011.  

  M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure(P)Ltd. & Others Versus State Of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary & Others,   11/03/2011.  

  Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. & Another Versus Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Others,   03/06/2010.  

  Durga Devi and etc. etc. Versus Vijay Kumar Poddar,   27/04/2010.  

  Central Warehousing Corporation (A Govt. of India Undertaking)Versus M/s. Fortpoint Automotive Pvt.Ltd.,   16/12/2009.  

  Ashok Kumar Malpani Versus State of M. P.,   22/10/2009.  

  Inmacs Ltd. Versus Prema Sinha,   26/09/2008.  

  Veer Singh Kothari Versus State Bank of India,   10/09/2008.  

  Sri Barla Rami Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Prl. Secretary & Others ,   21/04/2008.  

  M/s.Bhagwati Foundation & Others Versus Commissioner of MCD & Others,   31/10/2006.  

  M/s.Bhagwati Foundation & Others Versus Commissioner of MCD & Others,   31/10/2006.  

  State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Others ,   08/09/2006.  

  Ajeet Singh alias Muraha Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another ,   05/07/2006.  

  Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Another Versus R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheerangopal & Another,   15/03/2006.  

  Vijay Kumar Tiwari Versus State of M.P.,   09/12/2005.  

  Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Laxmidevi Ratani.,   21/02/2005.  

  Ajit D. Padiwal Versus State of Gujarat,   15/09/2004.  

  Karnataka State Financial Corporation Versus Smt. Jaya Menon & Another ,   25/05/2004.  

  State of M.P. Versus Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. and Others ,   19/08/2003.  

  Jabalpur Bus Operators Association Versus State of M.P.,   17/12/2002.  

  Harivansh Lal Rabra Versus Madan Lal Jolly,   17/01/1997.  

  Shankar Versus Indore Municipal Corporatin,   19/12/1995.  

  Rupal Bandi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   03/09/1993.  

  Huseenibhai Abdulkarim Versus Abdul Hussein Nazarali,   16/07/1992.  

  Ramachandra Narayan Khandalkar Versus M.P. State Road Transport Corpn,   02/12/1991.  

  Arun Kumar Versus Chief Engineer.P.W.D., Bhopal,   05/05/1989.  

  Raj Bahadur Pathak Versus State,   27/04/1985.  

  Purshottam Vijay Versus State,   05/11/1981.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1988 MPLJ 749"  







        (1.) THE owner of building No. N-89 situated at Anoop Nagar Extension indore has preferred this revision against the order of Assessment of Annual Letting value at the rate of Rs. 30 000/- (Minimum Rs. 3 000/-). i. e. Rs: 27 000/- per year and assessed the tax of Rs. 5 400/- per year. Against the order of assesment an appeal was also preferred which was dismissed.(2.) THE short contention of Shri P. Verma learned counsel for the applicant is that a notice dated 6-4-1985 was issued under Sections 146/153 of the Madhya pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the building was assessed to tax from 1-6-1984 and the tax has been increased on the basis of the rent being realised by the applicant/owner. After the receipt of the notice objections were filed but the applicant was not heard nor any evidence was recorded and the objections were dismissed. Against this order an appeal was preferred. In an appeal the photocopy of the lease-deed of the building of the applicant dated 23-5-1984 was filed with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the learned appellate Court rejected the application only on the ground that it was the duty of the applicant to inform under Section 154 of the Act about increase of rent. The appellate Court also held that in the lease-deed rs. 1 500/-have been shown as the monthly rent of the building and Rs. 1 000/- as the charges for fixtures and furniture such as fans almirahs light washing basin etc. It is not mentioned in the lease-deed that there are any machineries of which the charges of rs. 1 000/- per month are being charged. Hence the lease-deed was not considered as a necessary document to decide the appeal. According to Shri Verma the approach of the learned appellate Court was wrong as the amount is charged as rent of charges could have been decided only after recording of evidence. Another contention of Shri verma is that the property tax could not have been. charged retrospectively.(3.) SHRI S. J. Dhanji learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation supported the assessment and also the order of the Appellate Court. In addition to this the learned counsel submitted that under Section 154 of the Act it is duty of the owner of the building to furnish information in writing as provided in section 144 of the Act in respect of subsequent increase in rent. Shri Dhanji further contended that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was no necessity to afford an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.(4.) THE point for consideration before me is whether the order passed on the basis of the notice under Section 146 of the Act without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant is sustainable or not It is well settled that whenever a notice under Section 146 of the Act is isued the corporation is bound to give statement of grounds of the increase. When such a notice is issued and the objections are submitted against such valuation under Section 147 of the Act the objections are to be investigated by the Commissioner under Section 148 of the Act. For such investigation under Section 148 (1) of the Act a notice shall be issued to the objector giving date time and place where u/s 148 (2) of the Act the Commissioner shall hear the objections in presence of the objector or his authorised agent After hearing the objections the Commissioner determines the objections. An order so passed under section 148 (3) of the Act is recorded in the register to make it as conclusive evidence. The investigation of objections contemplated under Section 147 of the Act is not an empty formality but a mandatory duty is cast upon the Commissioner to hear and determine the objections.(5.) THE word 'investigation' has not been defined under the Act or in Evidence act or under General Clauses Act but according to Dictionary meaning 'investigate' means 'to trace out; to search or inquire into' to examine systematically or in detail minute or careful research. (See the Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol. I page 1108)Similar is the meaning in Webster Universal Dictionary at Page 755. Therefore the word 'investigation' must carry its ordinary dictionary meaning in the sense i. e. the act or action of ascertainment of facts search or inquiry systematic examination in detail or careful research. It includes collection of evidence so as to adjudge the objections after affording an opportunity of hearing. Thus the word 'hear' used under section 148 (2) of the Act cannot be used in restricted sense to grant audience to the objector but in reference to context means an inquiry to adjudge or determine the objections. Section 148 of the Act does not contemplate an act of receiving the objections and to consider the same in the presence of the objector or to determine the objections only by affording an opportunity of audience. If Section 148 of the Act is interpreted in such a restricted manner then it would mean no investigation and denial of an opportunity of hearing which is not the object of the section. Besides this would be against the principles of natural justice particularly when a liability in relation to imposition of property tax is being fixed.(6.) THE word - 'investigate' used in the Section clearly denotes an inquiry for determining the objections after affording an opportunity of hearing. 'inquiry' though does not mean here a judicial inquiry like a trial in law Courts but it may be a summary for adjudging the objections. It would be further evident from the fact that the appeal is provided to the District Court under Section 148 of the Act against the objections so determined under section 148 of the Act.(7.) IN the case in hand when a notice was issued under Section 146 of the Act though in my Opinion it does not contain the statement of grounds of the increase even if it is assumed that the statements of grounds of increase are contained therein i. e. In that case also the Commissioner was bound to record the evidence and then find out from the evidence so recorded or from the lease-deed or the document so produced whether in fact the petitioner is getting rent at Rs. 2 500/- per month or Rs. 1 500/- as rent and Rs. 1 000/- per month as other charges. This having not been done the assessment prima facie is neither legal nor proper as the procedure prescribed by section 148 of the Act was not followed The Commissioner who was exercising the powers under the Act was bound to act in accordance with law. As my conclusion is that determination of the objections was illegal and the assessment so made deserves to be quashed I need not to dilate on the question whether the lower appellate Court was right or not in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(8.) AS the assessment is illegal and is quashed the Municipal Commissioner shall decide the objections afresh after affording an opportunity to the objector-petitioner to substantiate his objections by placing the evidence documentary or oral and thereafter the Commissioner shall determine whether the charges of Rs. l 000/-per month are the charges for the appurtenances and furniture as laid down under Section 138 of the Act or not. The objector shall appear before the Commissioner on 5th of september 1988 and shall produce evidence if any in support of his objections.(9.) THE result is that the revision is allowed. The impugned order of Assessment passed by the Commissioner as well as the order pased by the lower Appellate Court is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs of this revision petition. Petition allowed.