JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Rialto Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the petitioner herein, seeks to impugn the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Asstt. Assessor Collector, "D" Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on 7-12-1994 to the extent the said authority has held that the land under construction cannot be treated as vacant plot of land.

2.The said question arises in the facts narrated briefly hereunder.

3.The petitioner is a registered co-operative housing society which owns a plot of land currently bearing Ward No. D-3310(1), 3309(1) and 3310(1-A). According to the petitioner society, these three ward numbers constitute a single holding which has been bifurcated by the respondents for their own purpose. The entire plot admeasures approximately 2334 sq. yds. (1951.50 sq. metres). It comprised of a main building of ground and three upper floors together with an outhouse and three garages. In or about 1986-87, the main building was demolished though the outhouse and three garages continued as it is. The building plans were got sanctioned by the petitioner from the respondents and the commencement certificate originally was dated 22-7-1987 for construction upto plinth. However, no construction took place except for excavation of trial pits after which work was abandoned. On 25-2-1988, the respondents issued four notices under section 162(2) and 167 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "BMC Act") seeking to create a new Ward No. 3310 (1-A) and identifying the same as land under construction. The rest of the area being Ward Nos. 3309(1) and 3310(1) was described as garage with shed. The respondents sought to reduce the rateable value with regard to the area of the garage with shed to an amount of Rs. 1,210/- net per annum with effect from 9-12-1987 and to increase the rateable value of the newly created Ward No. 3310 (1-A) (land under construction) to Rs. 3,56,180/- from the said date. It appears that the petitioner society was aggrieved by the said notices and, therefore, lodged their complaint with the respondents protesting against the increase of the rateable value. It appears that during the pendency of the complaint with the respondents, the property tax bills with regard to the newly created Ward No. 3310 (1-A) (land under construction) continued to issue based on the rateable value at Rs. 3,56,160/-. On or about 27-7-1992 the respondents addressed a letter to the petitioners' Architects stating therein that the work was at a stand still and the open pits may create hazards which should be looked into by the petitioner society. The case of the petitioner society is that on or about 27-2-1993, the respondents issued an I.O.D. and on 23-3-1993 commencement certificate was granted for work upto the plinth area. On 27-1-1994, the respondents fixed their rateable value of the garage with shed at Rs. 1,210/- net per annum relating to Ward No. 3309(1) and 3310(1) and as regards newly created Ward No. 3310(1-A), the respondents fixed the rateable value at Rs. 1,75,725/- net per annum treating the said land as land under construction. The petitioner society appears to have addressed a letter dated 4-2-1994 to the respondents stating therein that the site described as land under construction Ward No. 3310(1-A) was an abandoned building site between January 1988 and March 1993 and the same should, therefore, be treated as vacant land and the vacancy allowance as provided under the B.M.C. Act be given to the petitioner society. The petitioner society also filed an appeal against the order passed by the respondents on 27-1-1994 fixing the rateable value of Ward No. 3310(1-A) (land under construction) at Rs. 1,75,725/- before the Small Causes Court under section 217 of the B.M.C. Act. The said appeal is still pending. The petitioner submits that the respondents sought to raise 11 bills dated 14-2-1994 based on the order dated 27-1-1994 with regard to the newly created Ward No. 3310

Click Here to Read the rest of this document