Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022/6510/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Zonal Officer to provide details of the house tax demand to the petitioner within ten days to enable raising objections. The Court also directed that the mutation application be considered after requisite tax payments are made.

What did the court decide?

Direction to provide details of house tax demand within ten days; direction to consider mutation application after dues are paid.

Mukesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6510 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel representing the Lucknow Nagar Nigam.

¶6

The petitioner is said to be the owner of Chamber/Office bearing House No.129/007/TF-316 situate in Balakadar Road, Near China Bazar, Ward Jagdish Chandra Bose, Lucknow having purchased the same from the erstwhile owner through a sale deed executed on 16.06.2015.

¶7

It appears that certain amount of house tax is due against the aforesaid property and accordingly a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2022 requiring him to make payment of Rs.3,56,472.63/-.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as to in what manner the said amount is being demanded, has not been disclosed to the petitioner because of which he is unable to file objection/challenge the demand notice. It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though an application for mutation has been moved by the petitioner, however, the said application is not being considered appropriately on account of the alleged dues against the property in question.

¶9

Learned counsel representing the Lucknow Nagar Nigam has produced before us an office order issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam on 22.08.2015, according to which the process for mutation is to be commenced only once the requisite taxes against the property in question are deposited.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the Zonal Officer concerned of Lucknow Nagar Nigam to provide the details of the demand made against the property in question by means of the notice dated

¶11

12.07.2022 to the petitioner within ten days from today. Once the petitioner is provided with all details, it will be open to him to raise objection or challenge the same by seeking a remedy, which may be available to him under law. Once the petitioner fulfills the requisite requirements, the application for mutation shall also be considered and decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law, with expedition.

¶12

We further direct that once the petitioner is apprised of the requisite information under this order and a fresh demand notice is issued, it will be lawful for the municipal authorities to effect the recovery in accordance with law, if there would be no other legal impediment in recovering the amount of house tax.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 akhilesh/

¶14

Digitally signed by AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Date: 2022.09.21 10:31:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Sant Saxena (in Wria 20412 of 2018) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shiv Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development, Lko. and 7 Others

Prashant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. and 6 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Sumit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Singh Guddan Vs Union of India Thru.Secy. Deptt. of Petroleum and Natural Gas Central Secrt., New Delhi and Others