Hirdai Narain Seth,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by an order dated 20.5.1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division Agra rejecting their application Under Sec. 164(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, for review of the appellate order passed by him on 5th of August, 1975 the two Petitioners Harish Chandra Jindal and Harish Chandra and Sons have approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The controversy in this petition relates to the determination of annual value of house Nos. 6/1A to H (1) and (2) situate on Subhash Road, Aligarh.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the petition are that Municipal Board Aligarh issued notices to the two Petitioners and two others in the year 1972 informing them that the annual value of the respective portions in aforementioned house owned by them was to be enhanced to Rs. 3600/ - and Rs. 4800/ - respectively. The two Petitioners filed objections before the Board objecting to the enhancement of the annual value of various portions as proposed by the Municipal Board. However, the Assessing Authority vide its order dated 29.9.1972 treated the entire premises as one unit and determined is annual value as Rs. 18,540/ - which was equal to total of the annual value of all the four portions as had been proposed by the Board earlier. In substance, the Assessing Authority accepted that the enhanced annual value of each of the portions proposed by it was correct and that the annual value of the entire premises had to be determined as one unit. This, as we understand, had the effect of increasing the rate at which the house tax was to be calculated in respect of the said building. Aggrieved, the two Petitioners and one Niranjan Lal went up in appeal before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. Whereas the appeal filed by the Petitioners was numbered as 62 of 1974 -75, that filed by Nirajan Lal was numbered as 46 of 1974 -75. The Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 5th of August, 1975 allowed the appeal in part. So far as Petitioner No. 1 was concerned he directed that the annual value of the portion of the premises claimed by him had to be determined separately as Rs. 3600/ -. He also granted some relief to Niranjan Lal but did not grant any relief to Petitioner No. 2. Petitioners then made an application Under Sec. 164(2) praying that the appellate order dated 5.8.1975 be reviewed. The Additional Commissioner rejected the said application by his order dated 20.5.1976 without going into the merit of the submissions sought to be made by the Petitioners in support of their prayer for review of the appellate order, on following two grounds: that an application for review can be made only on discovery of fresh material and new ground ; A perusal of the order under appeal shows that the only ground pressed in the appeal was whether or not the annual value of different portions of the premises in question had to be determined separately and that no other point was urged by the Petitioner. Even if some additional points were urged and not noticed in the appellate order, it will be deemed that those points had been decided against the Petitioners. Section 164(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act runs thus: (2) The order of the appellate authority confirming, setting aside or modifying an order in respect of valuation or assessment or liability to assessment or taxation shall be final; provided that it shall be lawful for the appellate authority, upon application made within three months from the date of its original order or on its own motion, to review an order passed by it in appeal by a further order ; provided further that no order shall be reviewed by the appellate authority on its own motion beyond three months from its date.;