- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 28-12-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar on an appeal purporting to be under Section 18 of the U. P. Town Areas Act whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed an appeal filed by the respondent and directed that the name of the appellant-respondent No. 4 Bundu be recorded on the house in ques tion and the property tax be realised from him.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. D. Khare, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. The other respondents have not appeared. The parties are relatives. The dis pute is about a house situate within the town of Thana Bhawan on which house tax @ Rs. 75 per year has been levied by the Town Area Committee Respondent No. 3 in the name of the present petitioner Man zoor. The Respondent No. 4 moved an application before the executive officer of the Town Area that he was the owner of the house and, therefore, his name be recorded and the tax be realised from him. On the other hand, the present petitioner Manzoor opposed the application assert ing his ownership over the house and con tended that he was the owner of the house and no change be made in the municipal records. The Parganadhikari vide an order dated 8-9- 1986 ordered that there was dispute of title between the parties which cannot be decided in those proceedings and that since the name of Manzoor was recorded in the tax records, the same should continue till a competent civil Court decides the matter. Against that order the Respondent No. 4 filed, an ap peal which has been decided by the im pugned order dated 28-12-1987 holding that from the evidence on record, it ap pears that the house belongs to Bundu, Respondent No. 4 and that the municipal records be corrected by recording the name of Bundu. In the writ petition it is contended that the petitioner was the owner of the house and was assessed to lax under Sec tion 14 of the Act since the year 1981 and, therefore, there was no reason for any order of alteration in the municipal records. It is denied that the Respondent No. 4 has any title in the house. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 was living in the house as the petitioner's licensee. On the other hand, through the counter-affidavit the respondent asserts his title as was done before the authorities below.
(3.) THE U. P. Town Areas Act does not contain any provision for the settlement of title disputes between the contesting house owners. What the Act contemplates is the levy of municipal taxes on persons found liable for the payment thereof. Under Section 15 the Town Area Commit tee has to prepare a list of the persons liable to pay the tax imposed under Sec tion 15. An assessment under Section 15 was made on Manzoor, the present petitioner who claims to be the owner of the house. Under sub-section (4) of Sec tion 15 an assessment, when confirmed by the District Magistrate shall not be subject to alteration except upon revision of the assessment list under sub-section (2) or in pursuance of an order passed in appeal under the provisions of Section 18. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner con tended that the tax having been lavied on the petitioner and the same having not been subjected to any appeal under Section 18, no change could be made and the. application of Bundu was rightly rejected and the consequent appeal preferred by Bundu, Respondent No: 4 did not lie under Section 18 as the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was not an order of assessment. Further it was con tended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the entry should continue till the decision of the dispute between the parties by a civil Court, was a just order and there was no justification for the appellate authority to set aside the same and ordering that the name of the Respondent No. 4 be recorded. THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand re-asserted the respondents' case and contended that the Respondent No. 4 was the real owner of the house and the impugned order should not be disturbed particularly be cause a suit between the parties about the I i tie of the house is already pending. A perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate would show that the petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 4 were both residing in the house. This is a fact which is not controverter. It is also admitted that the name of the petitioner Manzoor was recorded in the municipal records of the Town Area and the property tax was assessed on him and against which no proceedings were taken by the Respondent No. 4. It was subsequently that he moved an application which has been opposed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had made an order that since there is a dispute about the title between the parties, the entries already made should continue till a decision by this Curt. This was an order that was perfectly legal and there was no justification for the appellate authority to disturb the same. As stated by the learned Counsel for the parties, a title suit was pending between the parties and it is there that the matter has to be finally decided. In my view, therefore, the appellate order dated 28-12-1987 was illegal par ticularly because it failed to make out a compelling reason for interference in the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that was eminently just.;