Municipal Corporation challenged appellate orders fixing a house property's ratable value at Rs.15,552/- after a five-fold enhancement to Rs.41,310/- without justification or due procedure. The High Court found no illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:BHC-AUG:27546
1 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION No. 4323 OF 2014
The Commissioner,
Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar....Petitioner
Versus
Pramod s/o Sugandhrao Kadam,
Age 63 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o Sattha Colony,
Station Road, Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar....Respondent
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Lokhande Kishor N. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f Mr. Niteen V. Gavare
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 3rd OCTOBER, 2025
FINAL ORDER :
1. The Municipal Corporation assails the judgment
dated 29.06.2013 passed by the District Judge,
Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.102/2010,
thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Municipal
Corporation, challenging the judgment passed by the 2nd
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in
Municipal Tax Appeal No.1034/1999 dated 05.03.2010
2 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
2.Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Lokhande for the
Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Gaikwad holding for Mr.
Nitin Gaware for the Respondent sole. It is the
submission of the Petitioner that the learned District
Judge, Ahmednagar has not considered that the property
is situated at Sattha Colony Station Road which is
being used for commercial purposes and some part is
let out for commercial lodge. It is argued that 310.75
sq. mtrs. Area is being used for commercial purposes
and therefore there is no consideration at all by the
learned District Judge to the important factors while
deciding the appeal.
3.It is therefore submitted by the Counsel for the
Petitioner that the tax value fixed by the Corporation
and its Tax Committee is therefore just and proper and
ought not have been interfered by the Civil Judge
Senior Division in Municipal Tax Appeal filed by the
Respondent.
4.As against this, the Counsel for the Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Gaikwad holding for Mr. Nitin Gaware has
submitted that the Respondent has filed a tax appeal
being Municipal Tax Appeal No.1034/1999 before the
Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar, challenging
the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation and
3 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
also challenging the decision of the Tax Appeal
Committee.
5.The Counsel for the Respondent had further
submitted that there is a clear cut finding by the 2nd
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar, as to
the ratable value of the property being erroneously
fixed as Rs.41,310/- and no explanation being offered
as to how the same is calculated. It is therefore the
submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent
that the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
had rightly fixed the ratable value of the house
property at Rs.15,552/- and directed the Corporation
to withdraw the earlier demand and reissue the
corrected bill in view of the ratable value now fixed
by the learned Court.
6.The learned Counsel therefore submits that there
being no error found by the learned District Judge.
The learned District Judge has therefore rightly
upheld the judgment dated 05.03.2010 passed by the
learned 2ndJoint Civil Judge Senior Division
Ahmednagar was rightly upheld by the learned District
Judge vide order dated 29.06.2013 passed in RCA
No.102/2010. The same therefore calls for no
interference of this Hon’ble Court.
4 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
7.I have gone through the impugned order dated
29.06.2013 passed by the learned District Judge,
Ahmednagar and the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by
the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Ahmednagar. After going through both the judgments as
well as grounds raised in the Writ Petition and the
reply filed by the Respondent sole, it is seen that
the house no.30 ward no.13A1/2(16) at Sattha Colony
admeasuring 310.75 sq.mtrs. was owned by the
Respondent herein within the limits of Municipal
Council, Ahmednagar which later on merged into
Municipal Corporation.
8.The house was constructed by the Respondent/Pramod
Kadam and after obtaining completion certificate
started residing in the same house, the ratable value
assessed by the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar was
Rs.8640/- which was regularly paid by the Respondent.
However in the year 1995, the ratable value of the
house property was revised and increased to five times
the earlier ratable value and now fixed at Rs.41310/-
The notice was therefore issued by the Corporation to
the property owners to deposit the amount of demand
which was promptly replied by the Respondent herein.
9.The Respondent appears to have raised a grievance
on the ratable value and requested for reducing the
5 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
same. The Tax Committee of the Municipal Council had
considered the grievance of Respondent herein and
reduced the ratable value of the property from five
times i.e. 41310/- to Rs.31602/-. The Respondent
therefore filed an appeal before the 2nd Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division, challenging the order of
reduction from Rs.41310/- to Rs.31602/- passed by the
Tax Appeal Committee of the Municipal Council. The
said appeal came to be registered as Municipal Tax
Appeal No.1034/1999. The perusal of the order passed
2010 would show that the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division has rightly considered that the Appellant is
regularly paying the taxes from 30.03.1995 and that
ratable value was increased from Rs.8640 to Rs.41310/-
that is five times the ratable value without following
due procedure of law or any justification. The learned
2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division has therefore
considered that the ratable value of the house
property shall be therefore assessed as double the
ratable value of the prior year and therefore arrived
at assessment of Rs.17280/- in the year 1996 and after
deduction of 10% towards repairs and maintenance of
the house property, the ratable value of the house
property shall be fixed to Rs.15552/- for the year
1995-1996.
10.The learned District Judge did not find any
6 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
material irregularity in the formula adopted by the
learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division in
deciding the Municipal Tax Appeal for the house
property admeasuring 310.75 sq.mtrs. and had therefore
dismissed the appeal. The learned District Judge,
Ahmednagar had taken into consideration the submission
advanced by the Municipal Corporation and has also
applied its mind to the reasoning adopted by the
learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Ahmednagar and also the
non-application of mind by the Tax Appeal Committee
who had not given any reasoning for reducing the tax
from Rs.41310/- to Rs.31602/-. The learned District
Judge, Ahmednagar has therefore concluded that the
findings arrived at by the learned 2nd Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, by fixing the
ratable value at Rs.1552/- for the year 1995, was not
suffering from any patent error and therefore
dismissed the appeal.
11.It is also pertinent to point out that after the
said judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed by the District
Judge, Ahmednagar, the Respondent received a demand
from the Petitioner/Corporation to pay the amount to
the tune of Rs.1,75,358/- and the same was deposited
by the Respondent. It is true that the same was
accepted by the Corporation under protest. However
there is no ground raised in the petition to justify
7 907.WP-4323-2014.doc
the five times rise in the ratable value of the house
property. The learned District Judge, Ahmednagar has
rightly held that there is no clarification as to how
much rent is fetched by the Respondent and what is the
basis for calculating the ratable value, as has been
calculated by Tax Appeal Committee or the Corporation.
The ratable value arrived at Rs.15552/- for the year
1995-1996 was thus held to be just and proper, calling
for no interference. This Court also finds that there
is no reason for this Court to interfere in the
reasoned order passed by the District Judge Ahmednagar
dated 29.06.2013 as well as the judgment dated
05.03.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Municipal Tax Appeal
No.1034/1999. The impugned judgments do not suffer
from any illegality or irregularity which would call
for interference of this Court under this
discretionary jurisdiction.
12.The petition is therefore devoid of substance of
merits, and is thus liable to be dismissed. Hence it
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE
Najeeb/..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the five-fold revision of the ratable value of the respondent's house property by the Corporation was lawful.
Whether the courts below erred in fixing the ratable value at Rs.15,552/- for 1995-1996.
The Commissioner, Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation
Pramod s/o Sugandhrao Kadam
Mehroz K. Pathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court