Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 13
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
P.S. Mishra and B. Prasad, JJ.
Daroga Lal - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 3458 of 1989
Decided on: 10.1.1990
For the Petitioner: M/s Ashwini Kumar Roy and Chunni Lal.
For respondent no. 4: Arvind Kumar Sinha and S.K. Mazumdar.
For the other respondent: Mr. Chandra Shekhar.
The CEO of the Patna Municipal Corporation has the power to alter or amend the assessment list, including substituting the name of the owner or occupier of a holding, and this power can be delegated to the Executive Officer. The CEO also has the power of control and superintendence over the Executive Officer's orders and can exercise revisional power.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - ASSESSMENT LIST - ALTERATION - POWER OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - DELEGATION TO EXECUTIVE OFFICER - APPEAL AGAINST EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ORDER - JURISDICTION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - CONTROL AND SUPERINTENDENCE - REVISION - TITLE AND POSSESSION - DETERMINATION BY COMPETENT COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Patna Municipal Corporation, which set aside the order of the Executive Officer allowing the petitioner's application to remove the name of respondent no. 4 from the Municipal Assessment Roll and enter the petitioner's name. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property in question in 1948, while respondent no. 4 also applied for mutation of his name.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the CEO's order was not without jurisdiction, as the power to amend and alter the assessment list had been conferred upon the CEO and delegated to the Executive Officer. The Court also held that the CEO had the power of control and superintendence over the Executive Officer's orders and could exercise revisional power.
Issues: 1. Whether the CEO had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Executive Officer's order? 2. Whether the delay in applying for alteration of the assessment list could be a ground for rejection?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted sections 131, 138, 139, 150, 151, 152, and 64 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act to hold that the CEO had the power to alter or amend the assessment list, including substituting the name of the owner or occupier of a holding, and that this power could be delegated to the Executive Officer. 2. The Court held that while delay in applying for alteration of the assessment list may be a ground for rejection, it may not be a good reason if plausible explanations are available.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that it was not inclined to interfere with the CEO's order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that it was open to the petitioner to move a competent court of law for appropriate relief in the event of any interference in his title or possession.
P. S. Mishra, & B. Prasad, JJ. – Heard.
2. The petitioner herein has moved this Court for quashing the order dated 19.12.1988 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. The impugned order is one purportedly made in exercise of the appellate power by the Chief Executive Officer, who has set aside the order of the Executive Officer of the Corporation by which order he had allowed the application of the petitioner to remove the name of respondent no. 4 from the Municipal Assessment Roll and to enter the name of the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, the land in question was purchased in an auction through the process of the court on 10.12.1933 by the Peoples Co-operative Bank, Patna City. Bank's name was mutated in the Municipal records of the Patna City and so continued, although the Bank in turn sold the property in question by a public auction to one Jaisi Ram Marwari on 7.7.1940. The said Jaisi Ram Marwari sold the property in question to one Jamuna Prasad on 23.12.47. Jamuna Prasad sold the entire property to the petitioner, who got it purchased in the name of his friend, Sukhdeo Rai for a sum of Rs. 150/- vide the sale deed dated 21.6.1948.
4. The petitioner has alleged that to avoid any controversy, as to the title to the property, Sukhdeo Rai executed a Bazidawa on 13.2.1978 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, applied for entering his name into the records of the Patna Municipal Corporation, as aforementioned. The case was heard by the Executive Officer Patna City Municipality. The Executive Officer, after completing all the formalities found that the petitioner's claim was genuine and accordingly ordered for mutation of his name, vide order dated 27.6.88. It appears that respondent no. 4 also in the meanwhile applied for mutation of his name. His application also was heard by the Executive Officer along with the case of the petitioner. The Executive Officer rejected the application of respondent no. 4 by the same order. Respondent no. 7 thereafter filed an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer on 26.8.88 along with a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Chief Executive Officer, however, found merit in the case of respondent no. 4 and accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Executive Officer and ordered for mutation of the name of respondent no. 4 instead of the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court against the said order of the Chief Executive officer.
5. Section 131 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enjoins that after the percentage at which the tax is to be levied for the next year is determined under section 136 thereof, the Chief Executive Officer shall cause to be prepared an assessment list which shall contain the particulars as enumerated therein Section 138 says that new valuation and .assessment list shall ordinarily be prepared in the same manner as the original list once in every five yean. Section 139 states-
"(1) The Chief Executive Officer may from time to time alter or amend the assessment list in any of the following ways"-
"(a) by entering therein the name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered, or any property which has become liable to taxation after the publication of the assessment list under S. 149."
"(b) by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any holding the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the holding."
x x x x
"(2) The Chief Executive Officer shall give at least one month's notice to any person interested and shall also cause a notice to be hung up at the office of the Corporation of any alteration which he proposes to make under clauses (a), (b)......and of the date on which the alteration will be made."
"(3) The provisions of sections 150, 151 and 152 app
