The liability for property taxes depends on the timing of the formation of the Co-operative Housing Society, and the Corporation has the authority to take action under section 203 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

1. This Petition impugns final Notice/Order dated 19 September 2007 issued by the Asst. Assessor & Collector “R” (North) Ward, which states that on failure to pay an amount of Rs.25,58,065/-, as demanded towards Property Taxes within forty-eight hours, warrant of distress under section 203 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 would be issued under the orders of the Municipal Commissioner for execution and that steps would have been taken to disconnect the water connections.

2. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered on 5 March 2001 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 are the Officers of the Respondent No.1-Corporation. Respondent No.4 is a Developer of the Building of the Petitioner. Respondents Nos. 5 to 12 are stated to be the owners of the land, on which the building of the Petitioner stands.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondents Nos. 5 to 12, who are the owners of the land, were granted exemption under sections 20 and 22 of the ULC Act, 1976 on 20 June 1991. One of the conditions for the grant of exemption was that the land-holders were obliged to convey flats to a Co-operative Housing Society formed by the purchasers. Respondents Nos. 5 to 12 granted development rights to the Respondent No.4 under an Agreement, who constructed the building as per the IOD dated 8 June 1992 and Commencement Certificate dated 4 July 1992. According to the Petitioner, despite the sale of the flats in 1997-98, Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 have failed to convey the property to the Petitioner.

4. The Petitioner has, inter alia, made the following averments in the Petition - that the Respondent No.2-Asst. Assessor & Collector issued the Bills in the names of Respondents Nos. 4 to 12. The property came to be assessed by Respondent No.2 from the year 2001. The Respondent No.2 started issuing Bills in the name of the Petitioner in spite of knowing the fact that the property has not been conveyed to the Petitioner till date. From the date of the registration of the Society, the members have been regularly paying the Property Taxes upto date. Vide Notice dated 21 November 2003, Respondent No.2 demanded the Property Taxes for the period from 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1997 i.e. for the period during which construction was in progress. The Petitioner-society was shocked to receive a warrant of Attachment dated 16 August 2003 for an amount of Rs.13,09,606/-. Vide Notice dated 25 February 2004, the Respondent No.1-Corporation informed the Petitioner that the rateable value of the Petitioner's building has increased. The Petitioner had filed a Complaint against the Respondent No.4 in the District Forum at Bandra under the Consumer Protection Act. The Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on receipt of Notice dated 19 September 2007 issued by the Respondent No.2 calling upon them to pay Property Taxes for the period from 1995 to 1997, when the building was under construction. The details of the Bills and amounts due are mentioned in the impugned Notice/Order and read as follows:

Sr.No.	Bill Period	Bill Amount	N.D.	Penalty
1	199520	13980.00	50	10872
2.	199610	34794.00	50	27129
3.	199620	34794.00	50	27129
4.	199710	34794.00	50	27129
5.	200011	446192.00	50	426525
6.	200021	398841.00	50	426525
7.	200111	110216.00	50	0
8.	200121	141192.00	50	0
9.	200211	99950.00	50	77806
10.	200221	32698.00	50	25455
11.	200210	313002.00	50
	Total	14,09,045.00	450	10,48,570

5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the Petition is essentially that notice is not addressed to the Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 who are liable to pay the Property Taxes prior to formation of the Society and that the amount claimed is illegal as only one year's arrears can be recovered as per