1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein called in question the resolution dated 21-10-2016 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, imposing property tax on the mobile towers affixed on the rooftops of the petitioners' buildings and also consequentially praying for quashing of the bill pursuant to the demand notices Annexure P-1, stating inter alia that such an imposition is not sustainable and contrary to the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956').

2. Essential facts requisite to challenge the impugned order are as under: -

3. The petitioners are owners of the buildings on which the telecom companies have affixed their mobile towers on the rooftops and they are being operated by the telecom companies. Mobile towers are being owned by the telecom companies and they have also taken permission from the Municipal Corporation by paying permission fees and the same is being renewed on payment of annual renewal fees from time to time. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur on 21-10-2016 vide resolution No.3 has resolved under Section 132(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 to impose Rs.20,000/- annual property tax per mobile tower with 10% increase every year.

4. This writ petition has merely been filed on the ground that the mobile tower is not covered under the meaning of land and building under Entry 49 List II of the Constitution of India, as such, the Municipal Corporation has no authority to levy the property tax. The imposition of property tax on the mobile towers has also been challenged alternatively on the ground that the property tax, if any, has to be imposed in accordance with Section 135 of the Act of 1956 read with the Chhattisgarh Municipality (Determination of Annual Letting Value of Building/Lands) Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Rules of 1997'). Therefore, to resolve and impose property tax at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per mobile tower per annum is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions contained in the Act of 1956 and the rules made thereunder.

5. Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating that the order impugned is appealable and the tax imposed is within the authority of the Corporation.

6. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that mobile towers have been erected by the telecom companies on the rooftop of the buildings owned by the petitioners and the telecom companies are tenants. He would further submit that mobile towers are not included within the meaning of building as defined under Section 5 (7) of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, it is not land and building within the meaning of Entry 49 List II and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. GTL Infrastructure Limited and others, (2017) 3 SCC 545. He would alternatively submit that property tax, if any, imposable is only under Section 135 of the Act of 1956 by determination of annual letting value and the rate of tax would be as provided under Section 135. Therefore, the impugned order imposing Rs.20,000/- per mobile tower per annum is arbitrary and contrary to Section 135 of the Act of 1956.

7. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that the impugned order is appealable under Section 184 of the Act of 1956 and the mobile towers are covered within the meaning of “building” under Section 5 (7) of the Act of 1956 as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra) and therefore levy of property tax on the mobile towers erected on the rooftop of the petitioners' building is valid and strictly in accordance with law.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely and critically as well.

9. The short but interesting question that arises for determin