R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. 2. The petitioners challenge the Notices dated 16-3-2000 issued under Sections 162 and 167 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") as well as the Order dated 22-1-2001 in relation to revision of rateable value as well as assessment of tax and the warrant of attachment dated 15-3-2002 issued by the respondents on account of failure to comply with the direction issued under Order dated 22-1-2001. The challenge is sought to be raised on four grounds. Firstly that the revision of the rateable value of the land and consequential assessment of tax has been done in violation of the provisions of law as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Bombay Municipality v. Polychem Ltd., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1779. Secondly, that the impugned order having been passed in exercise of quasi-judicial function, the same should have been a speaking order

and should have disclosed the reasons and in the absence thereof the order is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co.

v. Union of India reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785. Thirdly, that the order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, and fourthly that, considering the original assessment was on the basis of the land being a vacant land and as there was no change in the condition of land except that it was being sought to be utilised for the purpose of construction and that construction was incomplete and was not suitable for occupation, the Corporation was not entitled to revise the rateable value of the land under Section 154 of the said Act.

.3. Drawing attention to the various facts specifically pleaded in the petition and supported by the documents, copies of which annexed to the petition and the same having not been controverted in any manner by the Corporation, nor there being any affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that for the purpose of finding of the rateable value, the land can be classified only in two categories viz. vacant land and land with the building and that the decision of the Apex Court in Polychem Ltd., is very clear in that regard. He further submitted that the records disclose that the Corporation has revised the rateable value on the ground that a land is a "plot being built upon" which apparently reveals that the rateable value has been fixed taking into consideration the land is "land under construction" though the same is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court. He has further submitted that the scheme of the Act does not permit revision of the rateable value of land unless there is change in the condition of the land and mere commencement of construction of a building in the property cannot be considered to be a change in the land. Being so, according to

.the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the order of revision of rateable value and consequential assessment of the tax need to be quashed and set aside,

.4. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the Corporation has submitted that it is not in dispute that the Corporation has revised the rateable value and there has been revision in the assessment of tax and has sought to place on record a copy of the order dated 22-1-2001 which was passed by the authorities at the time of revision of rateable value and assessment of the tax based thereon and has submitted that the same was passed after hearing the Secretary of the petitioner-trust. According to the learned Advocate for the Corporation, the reference to the land as "land being built upon" is only for the purpose of identification of the land and therefore, merely because land is identified with the said expression that would not amount to say that the revision has been on the basis of "land under construction" and therefore, there has been no v