Municipal Corporation, Bhopal vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Bhopal

S.K. Seth, J.

This order shall govern the disposal of M.P. Nos. 1415 to 1432 of 1990 also.

The relevant facts. briefly staled, are these. The petitioner no. 2. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Bhopal. had issued notices u/s 146 of the M.P. Municipal Coporation Act, 1956 to the respondent, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal on 24.10.1967 and 22.2.88, regarding increase in the annual value, and consequential increase in the assessment of property tax, in respect of buildings belonging to the said respondent, situated in the said respondent''s own township, and falling within the territorial limits of the petitioner no. 1. the Municipal Corporation. Bhopal. Being dissatisfied with the increased value and assessuent, the said respondent submitted its objections to the same in the office of the petitioner no. I/Corporation as provided u/s 147 of the Act. After hearing the said respondent, the petitioner no. 2. i.e. the Commissioner determined the objections u/s 148 of the Act vide his order dated 20.7.1988. He, vide the said order, rejected the objections made by the respondent and directed that the property tax as per the revised assessment of Rs. 88,000,0461,00 per annum be recovered from it with effect from the year 1985-86.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.1988 passed by the petitioner no. 2/Commissioner. the respondent. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, raised disputes as to the liability of the certain buildings to assessment, the basis and principle of assessment, the amount of tax assessed, etc. and filed and appeal against the said order u/s 149 of the Act to the District Court i.e. before the District Judge. Bhopal. The appeal was disposed of by the District Judge vide his order dated 14.8.1989. It was held by the District Judge in his abovesaid order that there was no provision in Section 148 or elsewhere in the Act for adopting the value rate system of ascerting annual value of a building or land and thatthe value of a building based on its capital value by applying given percentage as laid down under clause (c) of Section 138 could be made only where it was not possible to determine the gross annual rent of that building under clause (b). It was pointed out by the District Judge that since the buildings were governed by the provisions of the rent control ligislation i.e. the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, It was the standard rent which the respondent was expected to receive in respect of the said buildings from by pothtical tenants which could be mad the yard stick to determine the rental value. It was further held by him that the assessment for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 was bad for the reason that no enhanced property tax could legally be levied with retrospective effect. On the basis of his abovesaid findings, the District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, set-aside the order dated 20.7.88 passed by the petitioner no. 2/ Commissioner, and sent back the cast-to the said authority for making fresh assessment in respect of the year 1987-88 and onwards in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.1989 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal the petitioners i. e. petitioner no. I. Corporation and the petitioner no. 2 / Commissioner, initially, filed separate revisions in respect of different sets of buildings in this Court. However, on belong served with the notice of the said revision, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the same were not maintainable. In view of the said objection, an application was made by the petitioners for permission to convert the revisions into petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The application was allowed by the Single Judge (Lal.J) hearing the said revisions vide his order dated 30.4.1990. It was pursuant to the said order that the revisions filed by the petitioners were registered as M. P. Nos. 1414 to 1412 of 1990.

It may be mentioned that when the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing on admission before us on 30.8.90. we expressed the view that before hewing the said petitions on admission, we would like to hear the parties on the questions whether the impugned order dated 14.8.1989 passed by the District Judge. Bhopal while disposing of the appeal preferred by the respondent before him u/s 149 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was really not revisable by this Court as conceded on behalf of the respondent before the Single Judge in the abovesaid civil revisions. It is in the abovesaid circumstances that after hearing both the parties on the said question, we are disposing of the same by this order.

Now, sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 provides that if any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment as to the amount of tax assessed, and appeal shall lie from the court, whose decision shall he final. It is significant to note dial there are no express words used in the said provision laying down that no revision shall lie against such order''. Accordingly, in keeping with numerous decisions on the point we have the least hasitation in holding that when it is provided in sub-section (1) of section 149 that the decision and appeal of the District Court under the said sub-section shall be final, all i. e. meant it that the said decision shall not be further appealable and not that it would not be open to revision or review.

In fact, long back in Chhagan Lal Vs. The Municipal Corporation, Indore, live apex Court of our country had an occasion to consider the exact question as in whether a decision given by the District Court under sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 was "final" in the sense that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with it in exercise of its revisional power under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The answer given by the apex Court to the said question was in the hit following words. The........................... contention is based on Sec. 149 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. 1956. It provides that an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to the District Court, when any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment, Sub-Section (1) of Section 149 provides that the decision of the District Court shall he final. It was submitted that the decision of the District Court was therefore final and that the High Court was in error in entertaining a Revision Petition. This plea cannot he accepted for. u/s 115 of the C. P.C. the High Court has got a power to revise the order passed by courts subordinate to it. It cannot be disputed that the District Court is a subordinate Court and is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."

However, what is still very strenuously tried to he contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the amendement of Section 115 of the CPC in this State by the M. P. Act No. 29/84. an order of the nature passed by the District Court under sub-section (1) of section 149 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 was no longer within the reviaional powers of the High Court under the amended Section 115 of the Code.

It is no doubt true that provisions contained in Section 115 of the CPC underwent a substantial change under the M. P. Act No. 29/84. After the said amendment, section 115 of the Code, reads as follows : "115 Revision-The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the District Judge in any other case may call for the record of any ease which has been decided by any Court Subordinate to such High Court or District Judge, as the case may be. and in which no appeal lies there-to, and if such subordinate court appears - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity: the High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be. may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." But, then, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to examine the contention tried to he raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

We may point out with due respect that in Chhagan Lal''s case (supra). it was lost sight of by the apex Court that even independently of the provisions contained in Sec. 115 of the CPC (as it then stood), and order passed by the District Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 was revisable by the High Court u/s 392 of the said Act. It is provided in Section 392 of the M P. Municipal Corporation Act that ''notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the lime being in force the District Court shall exercise all the powers and jurisdiction expressly conferred on or vested in it by the provisions of this Act. and unless it is otherwise expressly provided by this Act. its decision shall be subject to revision by the High Court''. As already pointed out above, there was no express provision contained in sub-section (1) of Sec. 149 of the Act to the effect that the decision of the District Court under the said provision shall not be subject to any revision or review. Accordingly, it was apparent that even independently of the provision contained in Section 115 of the CPC (whether unamended or amended), an order passed by the District Court under sub-section (I) of the Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act was within the revisional power of the High Court under Sec. 392 of the said Act.

For the reasons staled above, as the ordinary remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order sub-section (I) of Section 149 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act was available to the petitioners, and they had intact taken recourse to the said remedy, we see no ground whatsoever for interfering in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. Needless to say. the said remedy of revision was equally efficacious and expeditious. On the other hand, however, vide the scope of Article 227 may be. this Court could not in the exercise of its power under that article assume powers to correct every mistake of law. It is well setted that the power of superintendence conferred by the Article 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bound of their authority and not for correcting their errors.

Consequently, we dispose of the present miscellaneous petition, and the other connected misc. petitions mentioned at the beginning, by directing that the same shall be re-registered as Civil Revision filed u/s 392 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and shall be put up for disposal before the appropriate Bench of this Court accordingly.