Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Gangele, M.K. Mudgal and Sujoy Paul, JJ.
Nagar Palik Nigam and another v. Hemant Kumar Gupta and another
First Appeal No.214 of 2007 (Gwalior) : against the judgment dated 21.4.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2007; Decided on 14.2.2014.
(1) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- Ss.173, 174, 132(1)(b), 132(4) and 189 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.9 -- jurisdiction of civil Court -- demand notices regarding water tax -- no any show cause notice prior to demand notices -- taking water by illegal connection not proved -- civil suit for declaration of demand notices as null and void -- remedy is under provisions of Act -- however, if order is contrary to judicial procedure or arbitrary or order is null and void -- or no proper adjudication and application of mind -- jurisdiction of civil Court not barred.
Held : The proposition of law emerges that if a liability is created under the particular Act in regard to payment of tax and the remedy is given to a party aggrieved against enforcement of that liability, the party aggrieved can only pursue the remedy provided under the Act, he cannot file a suit in a civil Court. However, if the order passed by the authority or the Tribunal under the Act is contrary to fundamental principles of judicial procedure or contrary to statutory provisions or against the rules of natural justice or arbitrary or the order is null and void, then the jurisdiction of the civil Court under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code is not barred.
The plaintiffs sought declaration that the notices are null and void. By the aforesaid notice, a demand has been made, which is not based on any evidence. It means that it is contrary to the statutory provisions of section 132(4) of Act of 1956 because section 132(4) Act of 1956 casts a statutory duty on the Corporation to determine the tax liability. Determination means application of mind and there must be evidence and facts to reach out on the conclusion. In the present case there is no evidence that plaintiffs had been using water illegally for the last six years, hence, there is no determination by the Corporation.
The jurisdiction of civil Court could not be excluded that is why the Corporation in its written statement admitted that the Court had jurisdiction.
If there was an adjudication and proper application of mind, then it could be said that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, however, when there is no such adjudication, then certainly the jurisdiction of the civil Court could not be ousted because section 189 of the Act of 1956 explicitly and clearly does not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Court. 1969 JLJ 1 (SC), 2011 RN 361 (SC), AIR 1940 PC 105, AIR 1964 SC 1873, AIR 1964 SC 322, AIR 1963 SC 1547 and (2009)4 SCC 299 followed.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.9 -- M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 -- Ss.173, 174, 132(1)(b), 132(4) and 189 -- demand notices regarding water tax -- civil suit for declaration as null and void -- taking of water by illegal connection not proved -- remedy against such action -- is provided under Act -- however, if no proper adjudication and application of mind -- or order is contrary to judicial procedure or is null and void -- jurisdiction of civil Court not barred. [Paras 25.18, 25.20, 25.21 & 25.22
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of -- taxation law -- has to be interpreted strictly and high degree of proof of probability -- as person has evaded tax. [Para 25
Per Mudgal, J. (Dissented with Gangele, J.) --
(4) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- Ss.173, 174, 184 and 189 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.9 -- jurisdiction of civil Court -- demand notices regarding water tax -- no objection filed -- remedy against such action -- is provided under provisions of Act -- civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit against demand notices.
Held : The plaintiffs had not submitted any objection before the competent authority under the said Act regarding Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7. If the plaintiffs were aggrieved with the demand notices Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 they could have only filed the appeal under section 184 of the Act.
On perusal and analysis of the said provisions, it is crystally clear that the civil Court and no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit against the demand notices Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7. The learned trial Court has committed a grave error in deciding the case by overlooking the aforesaid provisions. If the said provisions had been taken into account by the learned trial Court the suit would not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. AIR 1977 SC 955 followed. 1993(I) MPWN 168 relied on.
The civil suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable for challenging the legality and validity of Ex.P-6 and P-7. Suit dismissed.
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.61, 92, 101 and 102 -- demand notices of water tax regarding cold storage and ice factory -- no any objection filed -- location of cold storage and ice factory -- not proved by documentary evidence -- oral evidence -- not admissible as secondary evidence unless permissible -- burden of proof is upon plaintiff -- any weakness of defendant -- no advantage can be given to plaintiff. 1982 MPWN 360, 1984 MPWN 338, 1976 MPWN 116 and 1984 MPWN 532 relied on. [Paras 29 to 35
(6) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S.7(iv)(c) -- suit for declaration of demand notices as null and void -- not simplicitor suit for declaration -- ad volorem court-fees required to be paid. 2001(1) JLJ 81 and 2004 RN 62 (HC) relied on. [Para 42
Per Paul, J. (On difference of opinion between Members of Division Bench) --
(7) Precedent -- meaning of -- once binding judgment covers the field -- no scope of any deviation. (2013)3 SCC 440 followed. 1993(I) MPWN 168 relied on. [Para 11
(8) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956(M.P.) -- Ss.173, 174 and 189 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.9 -- jurisdiction under -- demand notices regarding water tax issued by Municipal Corporation -- civil suit for declaration as null and void -- not maintainable -- jurisdiction of civil Court is expressly ousted. AIR 1977 SC 955 followed. [Paras 11 & 14
(9) Jurisdiction -- question of -- inherent lack of jurisdiction -- without any objection -- defendant submitted that civil Court has jurisdiction -- such question can be entertained at appellate stage. 2013(2) JLJ 219 relied on. AIR 1956 SC 340, (2005)7 SCC 791, (2007)2 SCC 355 and (2007)6 SCC 382 followed.
[Paras 12 & 13
U;k- xaxsys &&
¼1½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 173] 174] 132¼1½¼[k½] 132¼4½ rFkk 189 && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk && tydj lac/kh ek¡x lwpuk&i= && ls iwoZ dksbZ dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i= ugh && voS/k la;kstu }kjk ty ysuk lkfcr ugh && ek¡x lwpuk&i= vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, flfoy okn && mipkj vf/kfu;e ds mica/kks ds v/khu gS && fQj Hkh ;fn vkns’k U;kf;d izfdz;k ds izfrdwy gS ;k euekuk ;k vkns’k vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; gS && ;k leqfpr U;k;fu.kZ;u rFkk euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx ugh gS && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ugh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k dh izfriknuk, izdV djrh gS fd ;fn fo’ks”k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu tydj ds Hkqxrku ds lac/k es nkf;Ro l`ftr fd;k x;k gS rFkk ifjosfnr i{kdkj dks ml nkf;Ro ds izorZu ds fo:} mipkj fn;k x;k gS] ifjosfnr i{kdkj dsoy vf/kfu;e ds v/khu micaf/kr mipkj ds vuqlkj dke dj ldrk gS] og flfoy U;k;ky; es okn izLrqr ugh dj ldrkA fQj Hkh] ;fn izkf/kdkjh ;k vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ikfjr vkns’k U;kf;d izfdz;k ds ewy fl}karks ds izfrdwy ;k dkuwuh mica/kks ds izfrdwy ;k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eks ds fo:} ;k euekuk gS ;k vkns’k vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; gS] rc flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ugh gSA ¼iSjk 25- 18
oknhx.k us ?kks”k.kk pkgh gS fd lwpuk&i= vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; gSA mi;qZDr lwpuk&i=ks }kjk ek¡x dh xbZ gS] tks fdlh lk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugh gSA blls vfHkizsr gS fd ;g 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132¼4½ ds dkuwuh mica/kks ds izfrdwy gS D;ksfd 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132¼4½ fuxe ij dj vo/kkj.kk dh dkuwuh drZO; Mkyrh gSA vo/kkj.k ls vfHkizsr euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx djuk rFkk fu”d”kZ ij igq¡pus ds fy, lk{; vkSj rF; gksuk pkfg,A bl izdj.k es dksbZ lk{; ugh gS fd oknhx.k foxr Ng o”kZ ls ty dk voS/k :Ik ls mi;ksx dj jgs Fks] vr,o fuxe }kjk dksbZ vo/kkj.kk ugh gSA
flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk vioftZr ugh dh tk ldrh Fkh D;ksfd fuxe vius fyf[kr dFku es U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk gksuk Lohdkj dj pqdk gSA ¼iSjk 25] 21
;fn U;k;fu.kZ;u vkSj leqfpr euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx Fkk] rc ;g dgk tk ldrk Fkk fd flfoy U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugh Fkh] fQj Hkh] tc ,slk U;k;fu.kZ;u ugh gS] rc fuf’pr :Ik ls flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh gVkbZ tk ldrh D;ksfd 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 189 flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk Li”V;k vkSj iw.kZr;k vioftZr ugh djrh gSA 1969 ts ,y ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½] 2011 jk fu 361 ¼mPpRe U;k-½ , vkb vkj 1940 ih lh 105] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1873] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 322] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1547 rFkk ¼2009½ 4 ,l lh lh 299 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 173] 174] 132¼1½¼[k½] 132¼4½ rFkk 189 && tydj lac/kh ek¡x lwpuk&i= && vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, flfoy okn && voS/k la;kstu }kjk ty ysuk lkfcr ugh && ,slh dk;Zokgh ds fo:} mipkj && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu micaf/kr gS && fQj Hkh ;fn leqfpr U;k;fu.kZ;u vkSj euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx ugh && ;k vkns’k U;kf;d izfdz;k ds izfrdwy gS ;k vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; gS&& flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr ughA ¼iSjk 25-18] 25-20] 25-21 ,oa 25-22
¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dk fl}kar && djk/kku fof/k && vfrfu;efu”Bk ls vkSj lcwr dh vf/klaHkkork ds mPp va’k rd fuoZpu fd;k tkuk gksrk gS ¼iSjk 25
U;k- eqnxy ¼U;k- xaxsys ls vlger½ &&
¼4½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 173] 174] 184 rFkk 189 && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk && tydj lac/kh ek¡x lwpuk&i= && dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr ugh dh && ,slh dk;Zokgh ds fo:} mipkj && vf/kfu;e ds mica/kks ds v/khu micaf/kr gS && flfoy U;k;ky; dks ek¡x lwpuk&i= ds fo:} okn xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % oknhx.k us izn’kZ ih&6 rFkk izn’kZ ih&7 ds lac/k es mi;qDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds le{k fdlh izdkj dh vkifRr izLrqr ugh dh gS] oknhx.k ek¡x lwpuk&i= ih&6 rFkk izn’kZ ih&7 ls ifjosfnr Fks os vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 184 ds v/khu dsoy vihy izLrqr dj ldrs FksA
mi;qZDr mica/kks ds voyksdu rFkk fo’ys”k.k ls] ;g fuf’pr :i ls Li”V gS fd flfoy U;k;ky; dks ek¡x lwpuk&i= izn’kZ ih&6 rFkk izn’kZ ih&7 ds fo:} ;g okn xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh FkhA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mi;qZDr mica/kks dks utj vankt dj izdj.k dk fofu’p;u djus ds xaHkhj =qfV dkfjr dh gSA ;fn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mi;qZDr mica/kks ij fopkj fd;k x;k gksrk rc oknhx.k ds i{k es okn fMdzh ugh fd;k x;k gksrkA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 955 vuqlfjrA 1993 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 168 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 40
oknhx.k }kjk izn’kZ ih&6 RkFkk ih&7 dh oS/krk rFkk fof/kekU;rk dks vk{ksfir djrs gq, izLrqr fd;k x;k flfoy okn pykus ;ksX; ugh FkkA okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k ¼iSjk 43
¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 61] 92] 101 rFkk 102 && ‘khrkxkj rFkk cQZ QSDVªh lca/kh tydj ds ek¡x lwpuk&i= && dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr ugh dh xbZ && ‘khrkxkj rFkk cQZ QSDVªh dk LFkku && nLrkosth lk{; }kjk lkfcr ugh && ekSf[kd lk{; && tc rd vuqKs; ugh f}rh;d lk{; ds :i es xzg.k ;ksX; ugh && izek.k Hkkj oknhx.k ij gS && izfroknh dh dksbZ detksjh && oknhx.k dks Qk;nk ugh fn;k tk ldrkA 1982 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 360] 1984 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 338] 1976 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 116 rFkk 1984 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 532 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 29 ls 35
¼6½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7 ¼pkj½¼x½ && ek¡x lwpuk&i=ks dks vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, okn && iw.kZ:is.k ?kks”k.kk ds fy, okn ugh && okn ewY;kadu vuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA 2001 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 81 rFkk 2004 jk fu 62¼mPp U;k-½ voyfcarA ¼IkSjk 42
U;k- ik¡y ¼[kaM U;k;ihB ds lnL;ks ds e/; fHkUu vfHker ij½ &&
¼7½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && dk vFkZ && tc ,d ckj vkc)dj fu.kZ; us {ks= r; dj fn;k gS && ifjorZu dh dksbZ xqtkab’k ughA ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 440 vuqlfjrA 1993 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 168 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11
¼8½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 173] 174 RkFkk 189 && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && mica/k ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk && uxjikfyd fuxe }kjk tydj lac/kh tkjh ek¡x lwpuk&i= && vd`r vkSj ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, flfoy okn && pykus ;ksX; ugh && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk izR;{kr% vioafpr gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 955 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 14
¼9½ vf/kdkfjrk && dk iz’u && varfufgr vf/kdkfjrk dh deh && fcuk fdlh vkifRr ds && izfroknh }kjk flfoy U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk gksuk fuosfnr && ,sls iz’u ij vihy izdze ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2013 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 219 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 340] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 791] ¼2007½ 2 ,l lh lh 355 RkFkk ¼2007½ 6 ,l lh lh 382 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13
Gangele, J. -- 1. The appellants-defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.4.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2007.
2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They pleaded that theyhad industrial establishment at Chhatri Bazar, Taksal Road, Lashkar, Gwalior in the name of Sudarshan Ice Factory and Gupta Cold Storage. Plaintiff No.1 was residing in 1998 at A.B. Road, Bahodapur and there was a public tap at A.B. Road. All the residents have been using the public tap. When the Municipal Corporation decided to discontinue water supply to the tap, a civil suit was filed before the civil Court 8th Civil Judge, Glass II in Civil Suit No.521-A/1998 passed a judgment and decree dated 30.1.2004 of declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants were restrained to discontinue water to the public tap.
3. The officers of the defendants-appellants came on the spot on 14.4.2005 and they tried to discontinue the water connection to the public tap. Subsequently, it was re-connected. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiffs on 15.9.2005 to the effrect that the plaintiffs had been taking water from the main line of the Municipal Corporation illegally since 2000 and they were using the aforesaid water commercially for their establishments Sudarshan Ice Factory and Gupta Cold Storage. Hence, they were directed to pay amount of Rs.1,58,36,970/-. The plaintiffs pleaded that had no business at the place mentioned in the notice. They had been doing business at Chhatri Bazar, Lashkar and Taksal Road, Lashkar, Gwalior. There was no establishment of the plaintiffs at A.B. Road, Bahodapur as mentioned in the notice. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they had not taken any illegal connection of water from the public line as mentioned in the notice neither they had taken water for commercial use. The plaintiffs pleaded that a decree of declaration be granted that the notice dated 15.9.2005 is illegal and void and a permanent injunction be issued and the defendants be restrained from taking any action against the plaintiffs.
4. The appellants-defendants denied the pleadings of the plaintiffs.They plealdeld that some complaints were received that illegal connection had been taken from the main line at A.B. Road, Bahodapur. An inquiry committee was constituted for the aforesaid purpose and the committee inspected the spot and found that Sudarshan Ice Factory and Gupta Cold Storage had been using illegally water of the Municipal Council for commercial purpose by fitting 1”x1-1/2” diameter pipe lines in the main pipe line. The pipes were also seized. An FIR was lodged at the police station. The connection of public tap was again restored. The plaintiffs are owners of Sudarshan Ice Factory and Cold Storage and Sudarshan Filling Center and they had been using illegally water of the Municipal Corporation. Hence, after calculation liability towards payment of water tax notice was issued under section 174 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to the plaintiffs and they were directed to deposit the amount upto 15.9.2005.
5. The trial Court framed the issues that whether the plaintiffs are owner of Sudarshan Ice Factory, Gupta Cold Storage and Sudarshan Filling Center Bahodapur and whether the bill dated 15.9.2005 is illegal and void and whether the plaintiffs had used water of Municipal Corporation illegally.
6. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment had held that commercial establishment of the plaintiffs were not situated at Bahodapur and the notice issued to them for recovery of the tax was illegal. Trial Court further held that the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiffs had taken tap connection illegally from the main line of the Municipal Corporation.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants has submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse. Inquiry committee found that the plaintiffs had been taking water illeg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
