Partly allowed

Union of India and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2012WP/4041/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed a property tax demand dated 16.1.2004 issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Bilaspur, against the South Eastern Railways. Relying on Section 127-A of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam of 1999, the Court held that properties owned by the Union Government are exempt from property tax.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand dated 16.1.2004 issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Bilaspur for property tax assessment is quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari.

Union of India and Ors. Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

r. a.
‘R'K
U (5&3
writ petition No.li_OH I‘ of 1999
(1) Union of InEia}
through the Secret awry,
Ministry of Railways;
Govt. o’f Inaia, New Delhi;
x?” 11-3
H
(2) Divisional Raiwyanager,
SQuth Eastem@ Cgniyml kmLéu/m};
311 aspur,
District Bilagpur M.P.
)
a (1)§ ha state of Maxihya Praaesh ,’
through the Secretary,‘
ocal Self Governmaut Departmen t’
' <br>t n Of MoPoi BhOpal Mt? ‘
Municigal corporation Bil aSpur,
(2) K
thrwgh its Commissioner,
Bil a’spur, Tam am: District
B11 aspur M.P.
‘
‘3) S Collector, ailaspur,
t District Bilaspur M.P..' ‘
Mg§.,_2_26/227 OF THE ‘gmsnmlm OF Igggg‘,

¶2

jPEmITICNVUNDER

¶3

DETMLS OF WRIT PETITIm

¶4

C:
zmmwcqymgw \y.‘tx,.!i
av. M. EHm mwwww 3w §§mgwmw§F
g
A
§nogmwzi $5. mgwmwwwnw‘ macnmu. mg m
mc<ww§5mw \mu4ax.§
man 0 m
Qv awgammm? gawk. $53wn
393nm @w$5. wu¢$§w mGa ”wow
mmwmngmuc»
{Pu.;b§#§hnfl

¶5

\y.‘tx,.!i . ,K

¶6

Id
Mtb..%l;f CH

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

D.B.: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 8m ’ Honble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin

¶9

W.P. No.4041 of 1999

¶10

PETITIONER Divisional Railway Manager

¶11

Versus

¶12

RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶13

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents 1 81, 3.

¶16

Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Counsel for respondent No.2.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(13.07.2012)

¶19

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶20

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

(2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner — Union of India — South Eastern Railways, Bilaspur seeks to challenge the demand dated 16.1.2004 (^{Annexure—P—9} ) issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Bilaspur^— respondent purporting it to be for making assessment of payment of property Tax on the properties^ownedand possessed^{bytheRailwaysinBilaspurin} municipal limits. The notice of this writ petition is served on the respondents. They are served and duly represented.

¶23

(3) The issue involved in the writ petition does not detain us more nor does it require any discussion or debate or argument on both sides. Indeed it is answered by Section 127-A of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam in favour of the writ petitioner. It reads as under :

¶24

“127-A. Imposition of property tax — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the tax under clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 127 shall be charges, levied and paid, at the rate not less than six percent and not more than ten percent of the annual letting values as may be determined by the Council for each financial year :

¶25

(Provided^{thatiftheCouncilfails} to determine the rate of the property tax by 3lst March, the rate as prevailing^during the previous financial year shall be deemed to be the rate for current financial year)

¶26

(2) The property tax levied under sub— section (l) shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties, namely^—

¶27

(a) buildings and lands owned by or vesting in^—

¶28

(i) the Union Government; (ii) the State Government; (iii) the Council

¶29

(4) Mere perusal of the afore quoted section would go to show that property owned and possessed by the Central Government is exempt from payment of Property tax under the Adhiniyam. In other words, no property tax can be levied on the properties owned and possessed by the Central Government whether they fall within the municipality, limit or not by any Municipality much less by the respondent — Municipality.

¶30

¶31

(5) In the light of clear exemption contained and granted by virtue of Section 127—A ibid, we are of the considered view that

¶32

the impugned demand raised by the respondent^~NagarPalika Bilaspur, seeking to make assessment 0f the properties belonging to the writ petitioner,^which is a Union of India^— Railways and which is situated within the municipal^limits of Bilaspur city, has to be quashed being in contravention of Section 127—A ibid.

¶33

(6) Before parting with a case, we may consider^it apposite^to state that the writ petitioner has also raised^{severalissuesin} this writ petition in addition to what^{hasbeendecidedintheir} favour but on hearing the submissions on all^{suchissues,we} refrain from going into them. In our opinion, some are^lefttobe decided as and when occasion arises in some^{otherappropriate} matter in future and some cannot be decided, because, they involve disputed questions of facts, which cannot be tried^inthe writ petition.

¶34

(7) In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned demand dated^16.1.2004 (Annexure-P-9) issued by Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur — respondent is quashed by issuance of writ of^certiorari.

¶35

(8) No cost

¶36

shyna

¶37

Sd/- L G. Minhajuddin
i
Abhay Manohar Sapret Judge i
‘ i judge l

Union of India and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.E.C.L. through G.M. and Ors. Vs Murari Lal Agrawal

Naini BAIand Ors. Vs Shivnandan and Ors.

Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs Sanat Kumar Pandey

Kartik and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Yogesh Soy Vs Secratory Madhyamik Shiksha MANDALandORS

Santosh Agrawal and Another Vs State of M.P.and Others