Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) A Bench of two learned Judges being of the view that one of the questions which is interlinked with the interpretation of Section 9(3) of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short the 'Adhiniyam') would be whether having regard to the provisions contained in Part IXA of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') the Legislature of the State of M.P. had the requisite legislative competence therefor. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with basically two prayers. They are as under :"(1) The respondent No. 1-Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has no jurisdiction or right to claim the property tax from the petitioner for the building and the superstructure constructed in the Market Yard within the area of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. (2) That the amount of Rs. 70,000/-which has been deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 pursuant to the notice and auction proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. Interest on the said amount is also being claimed."
(2.) With reference to Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam it was submitted that exemption had been provided on the property on which no property tax could be levied even if the same falls within the area of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or a Special Area Development Authority. Learned Single Judge accepted the first prayer, but permitted the respondent-writ petitioner to avail such remedy as is available by filing a civil suit in respect of second prayer.
(3.) Review petition was filed by the present appellant which was dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal was also filed, which was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable against an order passed in the review petition. The appeal was also without merit.;