DEVIDAS LOTU BHIRUD Vs. PACHORA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 9 of 1998 was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pachora, by the present petitioners who are the original plaintiffs, the suit was filed in the representative capacity, challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the assessment done by the present respondent/original defendant/municipal Council, Pachora for the year 1995-96. The main challenge in the said suit was that the annual letting value of the property should have been determined by the Municipal Council on the basis of the recognised methods as contemplated under section 114 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purposes of brevity ).

(2.) IT was the case of the petitioners that the Municipal Council should have fixed the rateable value of the properties on the basis of annual letting value at which the building or the property is reasonably expected to be let on hypothecated basis or for which it is actually let on yearly basis. It is the case of the petitioners that the Municipal Council has adopted an altogether different method or mode of fixing the annual letting value on the floor area basis of the structure and, then, multiplying it by certain value. According to the petitioners, the method adopted by the Municipal Council is contrary to section 114 of the Act and hence it is challenged as illegal, ultra vires, illusory, arbitrary, oppressive etc. The second challenge as is revealed from the record is that the Municipal Council applied higher rates for per square metre to the building used for business purposes than the building used for residential purposes and such kind of discrimination is not recognised by section 114 of the Act. The method of taxation in regard to the entertainment houses, such as, theatres, the method is also wrongly adopted as per the petitioners. It was also the case that since the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were applicable to the Pachora Municipal area, the respondent should have considered the relevant provisions of that Act and rateable value ought not to been fixed exceeding the limit of standard rent. The challenge, therefore, is that the Municipal Council fixed the taxation exceeding the limit of standard rent and thereby the rateable value of the property has been shown excessive and in most arbitrary manner. One of the challenge which is raised in the suit is that the assessment list was not authenticated by the Valuation Officer as required by section 121 of the Act and was not also published in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) IN the above-said suit, the present respondent filed a say denying the various allegations made in the plaint. By Exh. 27, the respondent-Municipal Council also raised a preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, in view of the specific provision of section 172 of the Act. Another objection is also raised in Exh. 27 i. e. on the ground of mandatory notice as per the provisions of the Act.