Nagar Palika Parishad,Mathura vs Pramod Kumar Garg and Others

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 AppealNo.l88ofl994.

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

Respondents hold two properties bearing Municipal No. 148/150 and 148/150A. Property No. 148/150 is a Cinema house while property No. 148/150A consists of some shops. The Nagar Palika Parishad determined the annual value of the two properties at Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 12,000 respectively. The respondents appeal to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who has reduced the annual value of the two properties to Rs. 4,500 each.

The annual value of the building for the purpose of levy of municipal taxes has to be determined under Section 140 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 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 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. In the case of other buildings, for example shops, the annual value has to be equal to the gross annual rent for which such building is actually let or if not let might reasonably be accepted to let from year to year. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that while reducing the annual value to Rs. 4,500 each he has acted arbitrarily in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 140 and has given no basis whatsoever for his determination of the annual value at Rs. 4,500 in respect of each of the building. Therefore, the order passed by him is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in law. The appeal filed by the respondents cannot be said to have been properly decided and requires to be disposed of afresh according to law.

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 541997 is hereby quashed and it is directed that the said appeal shall be disposed of afresh according to law. Petition allowed.