CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Nagar Palika Parishad Mathura vs Pramod Kumar and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 April 1999 · Citation: (1999) 04 AHC CK 0138

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C.Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 — Section 140(1)(a)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition NO. 470 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 345 words

M. C. Agarwal, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Nagar Palika Parishad, Mathura challenges the order dated 541997, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Municipal Appeal No. 187 of 1994 whereby he reduced the annual value of his cinema house, named, Apsara Talkies from Rs. 18,000/to Rs. 9,000.

2.

The petitioner''s contention is that the annual value was proposed at Rs. 1,93,051. The respondent, Pramod Kumar agreed to fix the annual rental value at Rs. 18,000/ which was accepted and yet the respondents filed an appeal wherein the annual value has been reduced to Rs. 9.000/ without any basis. In the counteraffidavit it is stated that the said Pramod Kumar had never agreed to determination of the value at Rs. 18,000/.

3.

I have heard Sri S.V Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.K, Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.

4.

The annual value of a building is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and a cinema building has to be valued under Section 140(l)(a) of the Act. The annual value has to be a proportion not exceeding 5% to be fixed by the Rule made in this behalf of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building to the estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto. The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he has not kept in mind the statutory provisions of Section 140 and has arbitrarily reduced the annual value to Rs. 9,000 because in the immediately proceedings assessment the annual value was determined by Rs. 7,800. The previous assessment though relevant could not have concluded the matter. The impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is, therefore, not sustainable in law and has to be set aside.

5.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 551997 is hereby quashed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh according to law.