JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Ia No. 1 of 2019 has been filed for condoning the delay of 19 days in preferring these appeals. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.

2. Whether a cellular service provider who has obtained licence from the Central Government in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act, 1885') to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within the area of operation and jurisdiction of the local authority concerned, is liable to pay property tax to the local authority, is the main question involved in these appeals.

3. Such a question is mooted with reference to the fact that the property tax as envisaged under Section 135 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'), as applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh as well, can be imposed only on the 'owners' of the 'buildings' or 'lands' situated within the city, with reference to the gross 'annual letting value' of the buildings or the lands, as mentioned under Section 132(1)(a) of the Act, 1956. It is also pointed out that the Appellant is not an 'occupier' of the land or any building and hence, does not come within the purview of Section 132(6)(j) of the Act, 1956. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge repelling the contentions raised by the Appellant against the course and proceedings pursued by the local authority by dismissing the writ petitions is under challenge in these appeals.

4. We heard Shri Sumit Nema, learned Senior Counsel who addressed the Court on behalf of the Appellant, Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State and Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondent-Corporation.

5. The parties and proceedings are referred to as given in Writ Appeal No. 355 of 2019, arising out of Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2003.

6. The Appellant (same in both the appeals) obtained a licence from the Central Government in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 1885 to establish, maintain and operate telephone services in the "Madhya Pradesh Circle" and a lease agreement was executed in this regard as borne by Annexure P/5 dated 28.02.1997. After granting the said licence, by virtue of the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, a corrigendum was issued to the effect that the said licence would apply to the State of Chhattisgarh and was later granted unified access service licence as well, by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, w.e.f. 16.03.2005.

7. It is the case of the Appellant that on the basis of the licence granted, communication lines/cables including under ground cables were drawn/laid by the Appellant in various parts of the State of Chhattisgarh, including in Raipur city and also in Bhilai. This was done after obtaining all the requisite permissions from the local authorities in the areas of their jurisdiction. As the Appellant had to dig up the public streets/roads/lands belonging to the local authority, sanction was required to be obtained in terms of Section 10(c) of the Act, 1885.

8. It is pointed out that such permission was to be granted by the local authority in terms of Section 10(c) of the Act, 1885. The conditions that could be incorporated for granting such licence/permission in terms of Section 10(c) is stipulated under Section 12 of the Act, 1885. According to the Appellant, it could be 'reasonable conditions' that the local authority may thought fit to impose, but shall only be with regard to payment of any 'expenses' which the local authority wil necessarily incur, in consequence of the exercise of powers conferred by that Section or as to the time or mode of execution of any work or as to any other thing connected to or relative to any work undertaken by the 'Telegraph authority' (here, the 'Appellant') under those powers. It is also stated that, by virtue of the