High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Ratan v. Nagar Mahapalika,Kanpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 24135 of 1987  RD-AH 6063 (21 November 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.24135 OF 1987
Ram Ratan ..Petitioner
Nagar Mahapalika and others ..Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This petition has been filed against two concurrent orders passed on 26.5.1987 by the Judge, Small Causes Court and 23.11.87 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur in Second Appeal.
The proceedings arises out of assessment made by the Nagar Mahapalika against the petitioner in the year 1987. It is the petitioner's contention that he is occupying a small portion of a building which is purely residential in nature. However, the Nagar Mahapalika has made an assessment by which it enhanced the annual value of the property to the extent of Rs.13,200/-. The petitioner filed an objection. The objection was decided by the Taxing Authority.
The petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal before the J.S.C.C. under Section 476 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adiniyam 1959. In the said appeal, the impugned order dated 26.5.87 was passed, by which it was recorded that the parties have consented and, therefore, a consent order is being passed and by this consent order, instead of Rs.13,200/- a sum of Rs.8,000/- was imposed as the annual value.
Against this appellate order dated 26.5.87, the petitioner filed a second appeal and stated that he
has never given consent and also put forward his case on merits to say that the property is very small and if tenanted, the full value of the said property would have been not more than Rs.50/-.
I have heard Shri P.K. Sinha and Shri Rakesh Kumar, who argued strenuously relying on the entire material before the Court below and also stated that the property has now attained commercial value.
He also argued that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner. However, both the first appellate order as well as the second appellate order do not contain any order on the merits of the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show to the Court how the character of the property in dispute changed from residential to commercial, in order to attract fresh fixation of annual value and at commercial rates.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel, it would be proper to remand the matter for a fresh consideration so that property assessment may be made properly.
I, therefore, direct the Court below to give the parties a fresh opportunity of hearing and to conclude the matter, if possible, within a period of six months. Until the matter is concluded by the Court below, no recoveries shall be made against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 22.10.86. However, the respondents are not barred
from making any fresh assessment in accordance with law. However, it is also made clear that the
petitioner will pay his taxes regularly and at the rate, which was fixed prior to the notice dated 22.10.86. The two impugned orders dated 23.11.87 and 26.5.87 are hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration on merits. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.