The provisions contained in Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seek to protect a subsequent purchaser who purchases the property in good faith and for value without notice of the original contract. The same are in the nature of exception to the general rule. The onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea that he is an innocent purchaser for value without notice of the original contract.

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.

1. Heard Shri M.M.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M.Puranik, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Shri N.B.Kirtane, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 – the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (for short, “the NMC”) of recovery of property tax by attachment and sale of property by auction dated 15.11.2017. The petitioner is permanent resident of Paratwada, taluka Achalpur, district Amravati. She is co-owner of open plot No.102 which is part of khasara No.54/2 situated at mouza Somalwada, Patwari Halka No.44, Ward No.15, taluka and district Nagpur, admeasuring 270m2 of Nagar Vikas Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as, “the said property”). Initially, the said property was purchased by registered sale deed dated 22.7.1999 by one Mrs.Lalita w/o Diliip Patne. After execution of the sale deed, Mrs.Lalita Patne applied for mutation in her name on 2.3.2007. Accordingly, name of Mrs.Lalita Patne was mutated with the NMC on 12.3.2007. During the mutation, notice under Section 125 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 was served in the name of Mrs.Lalita Patne calling her to pay the Property Tax. The assessment notice for revision of the Property Tax in relation to the said property was served on her. As per the contention of the petitioner, though the notice of assessment was served on Mrs.Lalita Patne, no bill demanding the Property Tax after the revision was served on her. The said property was regularized by the Nagpur Improvement Trust by Regularization Permit dated 30.6.2006 in favour of Mrs.Lalita Patne. The Nagpur Improvement Trust regularized area to the extent of 258.75m2 only.

3. The petitioner along with her daughter Poorva had purchased the said property from Mrs.Lalita Patne by registered sale deed dated 31.10.2007. Thus, the petitioner along with her daughter became joint owners of the said property since 31.10.2007 to the extent of regularized area of 258.75m2. Their names were also recorded in the PR Card with the City Survey Department on 17.6.2009. The petitioner along with her father had also purchased adjoining plot No.120 from Dilip Kisanrao Patne who is the husband of Mrs.Lalita Patne on 31.10.2007. The petitioner had erected common compound wall and also installed a board showing her ownership. After purchasing of the said property, neither the petitioner nor her daughter nor her father nor erstwhile owner received any notice or demand for the Property Tax from the NMC. In the year 2015-2016, as per the data sheet for the Property Tax, the Property Tax of the said property was assessed from 2007 to 31.3.2016 as Rs.28,776/-. As per the contention of the petitioner, no yearly demand was served on her or on co-owner (her daughter) or on her father or erstwhile owner and the tax was assessed retrospectively for the period from 2007 to 31.3.2016 which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. The NMC had taken an action under Rule 42 of the Taxation Rules of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, “the MMC Act”) without service of bill or notice and issued warrant of attachment. The NMC attached the said property on 6.2.2016 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or co-owner of the said property. The NMC had also issued proclamation of 31 properties including the said property on 18.1.2017 in local newspaper. As per the contention of the petitioner, the said proclamation was in contravention of Rule 45 of the Taxation Rules of the MMC Act. On 31.10.2017, in absence of any Standing Orders framed, the NMC issued public notice for auction of the said property. The area of the property was also incorrectly shown as 278.70m2 in the said public notice and upset price Rs.75,36,048/- was shown. Though the petitioner had purchased the