The Corporation cannot revise the rateable value of a property by taking into consideration the compensation received by the member/owner of each of the flat.

JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the action of the Corporation whereby the rateable value of his flat B/7 in Shiv Darshan Central Railway Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was increased from Rs. 1490/- to Rs. 3670/-.

2. The petitioner is member of Co-operative Housing Society and is in occupation of flat which belongs to the society. The society owns the building and the share holders, who are the members, are entitled to possess and occupy the flat therein in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. Under the bye-laws each of the member is allotted a flat by subscription of particular number of shares. The rateable value of the entire building was fixed by the Municipal Corporation and on fixation of such amount the society used to recover the amount of tax from its members.

3. In August 1975, the Corporation decided to revalue the amount of rateable value and thereupon notice under section 162(2) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on the society. The secretary of the society appeared before the authorities in pursuance of the notice along with some of the members. After hearing the parties the rateable value of the property was revised. While arriving at the revised rateable value, the authorities have taken into consideration the fact that some of the flats were given by the members to the licensees on receipt of an amount of compensation. The amount of compensation was taken into consideration and after deducting 20 percent of the same, the balance amount was considered as the rateable value in respect of flats which were given to the licensees. The petitioner is one of the members who has let out his flat to a licensee on receipt of compensation of Rs. 440/-. The rateable value of the flat held by the petitioner was determined at the rate of Rs. 352/- and the annual rating value was determined at the rate of Rs. 3670/-. On the strength or such valuation, the rateable value of the entire property was fixed and the taxes were levied. The society in its turn by letter dated August 22, 1977 called upon the petitioner to pay the taxes on the revised rateable value with effect from April 1, 1976. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court for the reliefs mentioned hereinabove.

4. Shri Dhanuka, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, has raised two contentions to challenge the action of the Corporation. Shri Dhanuka first submitted that it was necessary for the Corporation to serve the special notice upon the petitioner as contemplated under section 162(2) of the Act. I do not find any merit in this submission. The property stands in the record of the Corporation in the name of the society and the section demands service of notice upon the owner. Shri Dhanuka urges that even an occupier is entitled to a notice and relies upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Vinnakota Venkata Krishna Sharma v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay)1, Misc. Petition No. 1131 of 1977, delivered on December 19, 1980 reported in 1981 Bom.C.R. 995. In my judgment, it is not necessary to determine the correctness of the submission. Even assuming that such a notice was necessary to be served upon the petitioner, in the present case I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner had ample notice of the proceedings adopted by the Corporations. It is not in dispute that the secretary of the society circulated a notice to its all members when the Corporation decided to revise the rateable value. In fact some of the members did attend the hearing before the authorities. In these circumstances, it is futile for Shri Dhanuka to claim that the entire proceedings of fixing rateable value was bad because of absence of service upon the petitioner.

5. The second contention urged by the learned Counsel is that the Corporation was in error

Click Here to Read the rest of this document