JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---The demand notices issued by the respective Gram Panchayats demanding property taxes from the respective petitioners and consequent warrants of attachment issued for recovery thereof have given rise to the present petitions.

2. The parties are different, but the issues involved are identical and so a single judgment will dispose of all the petitions.

BACK GROUND FACTS

3. The facts, necessary to appreciate rival contentions, taken from Writ Petition No. 2946/2000, may be stated as under:

4. Petitioners are incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is inter alia, engaged in shipping related activities. The respondent No. 1 herein is a Gram Panchayat of Pagote Village, Taluka Uran, District Raigad. The respondent No. 2, the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the CIDCO," for the sake of brevity), is a subsidiary company of the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra, a company owned and controlled by the State declared to be the New Town Development Authority for the area comprised in the site of New Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3-A) of section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.R.T.P. Act', for short). The respondent No. 3 is the State of Maharashtra.

5. The petitioners, have constructed Container Freight Station on the lands in question, for warehousing activities. The respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat, Pagote issued a notice under section 129(1) and 129(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "B.V.P. Act, 1958" for short), claiming property taxes from the petitioners for the period commencing from March 1994 to 31st March, 1998 in respect of lands and buildings falling, within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat, Pagote.

6. The petitioners were also threatened with warrant of attachment in the event of their failure to pay amount of property taxes demanded by the respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat.

7. The petitioners have taken exception to the demand notices and to the warrants of attachment issued by the respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 113 of M.R.T.P. Act, 1966, has notified the area of village Pagote as the site for development of new town, by name "New Bombay" and the respondent No. 2 CIDCO has been appointed as a New Planning and Development Authority in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (3-A) of section 113 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966; as such powers of Gram Panchayat to assess and levy tax on lands and buildings standing thereon had been eclipsed by operation of statute namely section 113(5) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966.

8. The petitioners have placed on record agreements, marked as Annexures C, C-1 and C-2 to the petition, and on the basis of the recitals contained therein, contended that the State Government, pursuant to section 113-A had acquired the lands described in the agreement and transferred the same in favour of CIDCO for development and disposal. The CIDCO in turn has consented to grant to the petitioners lease of the lands, in question, for the purpose of constructing building or buildings for commercial use on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. The petitioners further claimed that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat being a part of new town, pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government, the respondent No. 1 Gram panchayat has ceased to exist as such, it has lost its authority to levy tax on the lands and buildings owned by the petitioners.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 Gram Panchayat, submitted that it is not in dispute that the lands and buildings belonging to the petitioners are situated within the jurisdiction of the responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document