Whether lease of land granted by municipal authorities without following proper process is valid?

We have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the State
Authorities that no right can enure in favour of the
allottees/occupants of the structure on a public property, in respect
of which no formal lease deed has been executed and that too when
no prior approval of the State Government for such allotment and
grant of lease has been obtained by the Municipality. Understood
thus, the direction issued by the High Court in paragraphs 14 and
15 of the impugned judgment, does not merit any interference.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10122-10123 /2016
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.24281-82/2013)
Asikali Akbarali Gilani etc.Vs. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan & Ors. 
Citation:AIR 2016 SC4766

Print Page

Whether municipality can reject building permission on the ground of proposed Development plan?

  The Kerala High Court on Thursday, 30 July 2015 in a judgment titled ‘Havva T.P. Vs. Tirur Municipality‘ has opined that the Municipality is not at liberty to saddle the land owners by the proposed public purpose provided under a Detailed Town Plan Scheme (D.T.P.), without the land being acquired by the State Government or the Municipality for the purpose notified under the Scheme.
   On a reading of Rule 3, it is clear that the

applicability of the rule is for the purpose of carrying out

construction of public or private buildings and for other related

purposes. Therefore, the stipulation contained under Rule 3A

with regard to the supremacy of the Town Planning Scheme

can only be relating to the Rules regarding construction of the

buildings provided under Rule 3 referred supra. So also, in all

the afore cited judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

as well as this Court, the Courts were largely considering the

question of Town Planning Schemes propounded under the

Town Planning Acts with reference to Article 300A of the

Constitution and held that without acquisition of the land, the

schemes so launched cannot be put into effect. Therefore,

the contention put forth by the Respondent that consequent to

introduction of Rule 3A, the Respondent was justified in

declining permit cannot be sustained. According to me, such a

principle was evolved by the Courts taking into account the

protection provided for enjoyment of the property conferred

under Article 300A of the Constitution.


     Taking into account all these circumstances and

settled legal position in accordance with the principles so laid

down by the Courts in the judgments cited supra, I am of the

considered opinion that the stand adopted by the Respondent -

Municipality that permit cannot be granted consequent on the

pendency of D.T.P. Scheme can never be sustained under law.



     Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the

Respondent - Municipality and direct the Municipality to take a

decision in the application submitted by the petitioners seeking

permit for construction of the building on production of

requisite order from the competent authority under the

K.L.U.O for use of the land for a different purpose in

accordance with law, taking into account the observations

made above.
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                               PRESENT:

                         MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

                 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY,2015
                                   W.P.(C).No. 4050 of 2014 (E)
                                   

         HAVVA T.P, Vs TIRUR MUNCIPALITY,
            

Print Page

Whether sanctioned plan is public document and its certified copy is admissible in evidence?

 The document sought to be produced is a certified copy of the plan approved by the Mormugao Municipal Council. Section 74 of The Act provides that the documents forming the acts or records of the acts, of official bodies and tribunals, are public documents. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the document (certified copy of the plan) which bears the seal of the Municipality, is a public document in terms of Section 74 of The Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 54 of 2011

Decided On: 20.04.2011

 Shri Manuel Do Rosario Vs.  Shri Nivratti Madhav Naik 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Lavande, J.

Print Page

What remedy is available to assessee who is affected by tax imposed by municipal council?

 We take up the first preliminary question for
consideration, namely availability of alternate efficacious remedy,
as contended by learned counsel for the respondent no.2. It is
true that Section 169 of the Municipal Act provides for an appeal
to the Magistrates or Committee. The question, however, relates
to the applicability of Section 49A of the Act in the matter of
engagement of an agency for carrying out the duties in the matter
of assessment of taxes, and preparation and finalization of
assessment list, which question cannot be gone into in the said
appeal. The further question is about violation of various
provisions of the Act as projected before us by the petitioners, on
the ground that the action impugned in the Writ Petition violates
the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. There is a further question also
whether the Appellate Court or the Committee would be able to
consider the matters raised in the instant petition. We do not wish

to undertake a deeper exercise, since the said question has been
decided by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
New Manek Chowk Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. [cited
supra]. In our opinion, it would be sufficient if we quote
paragraph 14 and extracted portion of para 16 from the said
judgment, which read as under:-
“14. Mr. Setalvad argued that at that stage
there is only a proposal and even if the municipality
had acted arbitrarily it was open to the assessees to
take objection thereto and have proper valuations
made and the assessment book prepared properly.
We cannot accept this argument. If the
municipality fails in its initial duty to act in terms of
R. 9 (b) it does not lie in its mouth to say that any
irregularity, however, patent on the face of it, is
open to correction. Moreover, the methods of
correction in this regard are really illusory. The
Small Causes Court cannot decide the applicability
of Art. 14 of the Constitution and according to the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in Balkrishna v.
Poona Municipal Corporation (1963) 65 Bom LR
119, (by which the District Judge would be bound):
“.....the words used in S. 406 (1) of the Act..... do
not cover the vires of the tax or the legality of the
tax which is sought to be levied.”
Earlier, the learned Judges had pointed out after
noting Ss 406 to 413 that :
“the decision of Judge aforesaid upon any appeal
against any such value or tax if no appeal is made
therefrom under S. 411 and if such appeal is made

the decision of the District Court in such appeal
shall be final.”
From this it follows that it would be useless for the
assessee to take objections or file appeals against
the decision on rateable value to the authorities
prescribed by the Act if he was challenging the
determination of the rateable value as being
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is no
answer to such a charge to say that the rateable
value could be determined properly by the
municipal authorities acting under the Act and the
rules thereunder when they do not resort to any of
the well-known methods of valuation and cannot
justify their arbitrary method.”
“16. The net result of all this is that unless the
assessee pays the amount of tax demanded, his
appeal cannot be heard so that if he questions the
rateable value or the levy of the tax, he must in
any event, deposit the amount demanded. In
effect, the Act and the appeal rules do not make
any provision for relief to an assessee who
complains that the assessment book has been
prepared in violation of the law. .....”
 Article 265 of the Constitution reads thus:-
“265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority
of law.- No tax shall be levied or collected except by
authority of law.”
As held in the case of Municipal Council, Khurai & another Vs.
Kamal Kumar & another [1965 Mh.L.J. 225], we find that the
procedure for imposing the liability to pay a tax has to be strictly

complied with. Where it is not so complied with, the liability to pay
the tax cannot be said to be according to law. That apart, reading
of the appellate provision under Section 169 of the Act, to our
mind, does not at all encompass the legal challenges raised in the
instant Writ Petition, on the ground that the action impugned is
contrary to the various provisions of the Act and that the same is
also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2585 of 2013

 Sandeep Inderchand Gandhi Vs   The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND
P.R. BORA, JJ.

Pronounced on : 12th Dec., 2014.
 [Per A.B. Chaudhari,J.]:
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR628

Print Page

Whether municipal council can appoint private agency to prepare assessment list for imposition of Taxes?

Reading of the above Agreement, to our mind, clearly shows that
the entire job contemplated right from Sections 113 to 170 of the
Act has been entrusted to the said agency by the Chief Officer
who has entered into an Agreement as above. We find that the
aforesaid Agreement and subsequent actions taken by the
Municipal Council with the help of the agency are contrary to the
scheme of the Act as discussed above, and Section 49A of the Act
does not save any of the actions of the Chief Officer for
implementing the resolution of the Municipal Council contemplated
by Section 105 of the Act could be implemented by appointing an
agency, since Section 49A of the Act is inapplicable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2585 of 2013
Sandeep Inderchand Gandhi,


Versus
 The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND
P.R. BORA, JJ.

Pronounced on : 12th Dec., 2014.
J U D G M E N T [Per A.B. Chaudhari,J.]:
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR 628

Print Page