Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Korba, Chhattisgarh. The appellant filed writ petition challenging legality, validity and propriety of the resolution passed by respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation for the financial year 2017-2018, whereby respondent No. 3 treating buildings height of more than the normal buildings as a building of special category and treated them as a multiple floors building. Every 16 feet of the height of a building was to be treated as one floor. Based on the resolution, a demand of Rs.24,79,91,502/- by issuing a bill dated 05/08/2017 and a demand of Rs.2,50,68,491/- by way of bill dated 05/08/2017 was raised against Balco Captive Power Plant, Jamnipali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 132, 135, 136, and 138 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') as well as considering the Chhattisgarh Municipality (Determination of Annual Letting Value of Building/Lands) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1997').

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Municipal Corporation was not having jurisdiction to presume multiple floor of any building only because of its height. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in assessing/calculating the constructed area of building contrary to the provisions of Rule 2(h) of Rules of 1997. He lastly submitted that under the taxing provisions, meaning to the word/words are not to be given expanded or extended meaning.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant provisions provided under the Act of 1956 and thereafter arrived at a valid conclusion and rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 138 of Act of 1956 and Rules of 1997 provides on what basis the annual letting value of land or building is to be calculated. Section 138 of the Act of 1956 itself provides the factors to be taken into consideration and also gives discretion and powers for taking into consideration other relevant factors which has not been specifically provided under Section 138 of the Act of 1956 for assessing annual letting value of land or building. He lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the material available on record has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and it does not require any interference.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record as well as the provisions of Act of 1956, which provides for assessment and factors to be considered for calculating the tax, payable by the owners of the buildings or lands situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation.

6. The provisions of Section 132(1) of Act of 1956 provides for taxes to be imposed under this Act. Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 132 of Act of 1956 provides for imposition of taxes on buildings or lands situated within the city with reference to the gross annual letting value of buildings or lands, called the property tax. Property tax is provided under Section 135 of Act of 1956. Section 138 of Act of 1956 provides for annual letting value of land or building. The owner of the land or building becomes liable to pay property tax once he holds any property i.e. land or building within the territory of the Municipal Corporation.

7. The learned Single Judge while considering the issues raised before him in the writ petition has considered the relevant provisions of Act of 1956 and also taking into consideration the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat