Whether a person can seek De-Sealing Of Property By Cantonment Board, When Building Plan was not Sanctioned?

 The afore extracted prayer No.(d) under Annexure

P-3 itself would reveal that the writ petitioner had sought

for de-sealing the property only on the approval of its

building plan. We have already noted that the writ

petitioner himself got no case that the building plan

submitted by him was sanctioned. When it was not

sanctioned and the direction to the DCB under Annexure

P-3 order dated 25.09.2020 was only to consider the

application for sanction of the building plan in

accordance with the prevailing building regulations and

bye laws, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed, now, to

contend that the DCB got an obligation to de-seal the

property of the writ petitioner. In the light of the position

obtained from Annexure P-3 order dated 25.09.2020 that

SLP (C) No.8866 of 2020 was disposed of only with a

direction for consideration of his application for sanction

of building plan, even after noting the fact that the

property has been sealed and the Writ Petition (C)

No.723 of 2020 heard along with the SLP was dismissed

as not pressed under the said order, the prayer of the

petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus in the absence of

any legal right at this stage, cannot be granted. There

cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the

question of de-sealing is also a matter which is

intertwined with the issues arising for consideration in

the pending Civil Suit, in view of the attendant

circumstances. At any rate, in the light of Annexure P-3

order dated 25.09.2020, the writ petitioner is not legally

entitled to seek such a prayer at this stage. In the said

circumstances, the Writ Petition has to fail as the prayer

sought for therein is not grantable at this stage. {Para 15}

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos. 4538-4539 of 2023

Ram Kishan (Deceased) Vs Manish Kumar & Anr. 

Author: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Dated: July 24, 2023.

Print Page

Can Municipal Corporation seal the premises and disconnect its electric supply if property tax regarding that property is unpaid?

The only provision under the Act which provides the manner in which the corporation could recover the property taxes is found in Section 128 of the Act. For ease of reference the same is reproduced here:“ 128. Manner of recovering municipal taxes.

A municipal tax may be recovered by the following

processes in the manner prescribed by rules: –

(1) by representing a bill,

(2) [***],

(3) by distraint and sale of a defaulter's movable

property,

(4) by the attachment and sale of a defaulter's

immovable property,

(5) in the case of octroi and toll, by the seizure and sale

of goods and vehicles,

(6) in the case of property tax by the attachment of rent

due in respect of the property,

(7) by a suit.”{Para 3}

4. The Taxation Rules as provided in Chapter VIII of Schedule D to the Act(Rules) also does not in terms indicate any power in the Respondent Corporation to seal the defaulting property and disconnect the electric  supply to it for recovery of property taxes.

5. As none of the aforesaid provisions in the Act and the Rules indicate any power in the corporation to seal the defaulting property and/or disconnect the supply of electricity to the defaulting property, we asked Mr. Patil the learned counsel of the Corporation, the source of its power to seal the property and disconnect electricity supply to be defaulting property. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation did concede there is no specific power in the Act and/or the Rules which

entitles the Corporation to seal and disconnect the electric supply to the defaulting property. He submits that it is incidental to the Corporation's power to sell the property under Rule 47 of the Rules after attachment under Section 42 of the Rules. In this case there has been no attachment of the defaulting property, so no question of any sale or exercise of incidental power can arise. In any event, a power to seal and disconnect electric supply is a very drastic power which would make defaulting property unusable only because the property taxes have not been paid.

The action of sealing the defaulting property and cutting of its electric supply is consequently without jurisdiction as it is not supported by any provisions of law. The Act and the Rules thereunder provides the manner in which the property taxes in respect of the property is to be recovered by the Corporation and the Corporation and its officers are bound to strictly follow the provisions of the Act and Rules and not read into the provisions/powers which are not explicitly found in the statute so as to clothe themselves with powers which they do not possess.

6. In the above view, the impugned sealing of the 15 mobile towers as well as disconnecting of electric supply by the respondent no.1Corporation is completely without jurisdiction. In the above view, we direct the corporation to forthwith reconnect the electric supply as well as deseal the subject 15 mobile towers. The same should be done latest by this evening.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3367 OF 2017

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited . Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation

CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA &

A. K. MENON, JJ.

DATE : 21st MARCH, 2017

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable against order of Chief Officer of municipality directing sealing of premises?

 In the instant case, there is no right of appeal
expressly conferred upon the person aggrieved by the order of
Chief Officer directing sealing of premises passed under Section
184A(1) of the Act, 1968. The appropriate remedy in such a case,
would be a revision application filed under Section 303 of the Act,
1968. The learned Presiding Officer of Municipalities Appellate
Tribunal has ignored the well settled principles of law when he
recorded his finding that the remedy of appeal can be inferred
from the interpretation of Sections 184, 184A and other provisions
of Chapter XII of the Act, 1968. In fact, there is no question of
referring to the other provisions, including the provision of Section
184C(3), as the learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 would
like to do for implying the presence of power to decide appeal filed
against an order passed under Section 184A(1) by the Chief
Officer, in view of the settled principles of law discussed earlier.
It is pertinent to note here that the learned Presiding Officer of
Municipalities Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order has
admitted that there is no express statutory provision laying down
that the appeal shall lie from the order of sealing passed under
Section 184A (please see page 16 of the impugned order) and yet
he has painstakingly carried out the whole exercise to carve out a
right of appeal by implication. The finding recorded in the
impugned order regarding maintainability of appeal against the
order passed by the Chief Officer under Section 184A is perverse
and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.830 of 2015

 Shri Dilip Trimbak Alve  Vs The Chief Officer,

 CORAM :- S. B. SHUKRE, J.

 Dated : 10th March, 2016
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR 527

Print Page