Allowed

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2010WP/687/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an exorbitant revision of rateable value without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The court held that natural justice required an opportunity of hearing and set aside the impugned communication, directing the petitioners to appear before the Assessing Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication set aside; petitioners directed to appear before Assessing Officer within two weeks; liberty granted to take appropriate steps.

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.220 OF 2010

¶2

Anjana Kshetry & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶3

Ms. N. V. Sanglikar for Petitioners

¶4

Ms. V. S. Gharpure for Respondents

¶5

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶6

A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2010.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard submissions of the respective counsel.

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶10

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that revision in rateable value from Rs.33,090 to Rs.16,49,165/- NPA, is exorbitant and in violation of principles of natural justice as without special notice served upon members of the Petitioners, the Respondents committed error in holding that, no complaint was filed within 15 days, when in fact the Petitioners had orally objected to the revision of rateable value.

¶11

The Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents opposed the

¶12

contention of the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners can prefer an Appeal against the rateable value revised, in respect of the disputed property.

¶13

Considering the contention of the Petitioners that no notice was given to the Petitioners before revision of the rateable value and the opportunity of hearing was not granted and also in view of the order brought to our attention passed in M/s. Lal Enterprises & Anr Vs. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1444 of 2009, decided on 11^th August 2009, by division bench of this Court. We are of the opinion that, the Petitioners are entitled for an opportunity of hearing before the Assessing officer of the Respondents. In view of this, we set aside the communication dated 18^th June 2009, received by the Petitioners on 8^th July 2009 ExhibitG to the Petition, with direction that the Petitioners will appear before the Assessing officer within two weeks from today, place on record the material in support of the representation / application and the Assessing Officer shall pass an order in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioners. In case, the Petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of the Assessing Officer, liberty to them to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶14

We dispose of the Petition in terms of prayer clause (b). Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), with no order as to costs.

¶15

( J. N. Patel, J)

¶16

(A.P. BHANGALE, J)

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Shri Sai Developers Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Chamanlal Narula Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Accord Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Board of Waks and 5 Ors.

Govind a. Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Sri Ganapathi Mills Company Limited Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce Nd Anr.