The imposition of 'Narmada Tax' on lands falls within the competence of the State under Entry 49 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule, but the imposition of the tax on a flat rate basis is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Shantanu Kemkar, J. :

” This common order will govern disposal of all the above mentioned writ petitions together as in all these writ petitions, the challenge is made to the vires of the order / circular dated 24-09-2012 issued by the State Government as also the permanent order No.18/2012 issued by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (for short, the Municipal Corporation) whereby they have imposed ' Narmada Tax” as a pre-condition for grant of sanction for raising construction of building.

For the sake of convenience, we shall narrate the facts of Writ Petition No.1175/2013.

2. The petitioner ' a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 is an association of the Private Colonizers & Real Estate Developers. It has challenged the constitutionality and vires of the Order/ Circular dated 24.09.2012 issued by the State Government by which the State has approved the resolution dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Municipal Corporation resolving to impose ' Narmada Tax” to be paid at the rate mentioned in the resolution, as pre-condition for grant of building construction permission to the applicants.

3. The extract of the impugned orders is reproduced below:

e/;izns'k 'kklu

uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx ea=ky;A

dzekad ,Q 6&39@2010@18&3 HkksikyA

fnukad & 24 flrEcj] 2012

izfr]

vk;qDr]

uxj ikfydk fuxe]

HkksikyA

fo"k; %& uxj fuxe lhekarxZr Hkou fuekZ.k dh vuqefr ds lkFk ueZnkdj dk vf/kjksi.k ,oa olwyh fo"k;dA

lanHkZ%& vkidk i= dzekad 415@vk-d-@12 fnukad 23-06-2012A

jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk uxj ikfydk fuxe Hkksiky ds ifj"kn ladYi fnukad 30-03-2012 }kjk ikfjr **ueZnkdj** olwyus ds fuEukuqlkj izLrko dk vuqeksnu iznku fd;k tkrk gS%&

dj Lkkj.kh ueZnkdj dh fu/kkZfjr nj %&

1- 500 oxZQhV rd 'kwU;

2- 500 oxZQhV ls 1000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 1@& izfr oxZQhV

3- 1000 oxZQhV ls 1500 oxZQhV rd :i;s 2@& izfr oxZQhV

4- 1500 oxZQhV ls 3000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 4@& izfr oxZQhV

5- 3000 oxZQhV ls 4000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 6@& izfr oxZQhV

6- 4000 oxZQhV ls mij :i;s 15@& izfr oxZQhV

2- mDr ueZnkdj uxj fuxe Hkksiky dh lhekarxZr izR;sd Hkou Lokeh] izca/kd] O;oLFkkid] Hkkxhnkj ij Hkou fuekZ.k vuqefr ds lkFk olwyh ;ksX; gksxkA

e/;izns’k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj

gLrk{kj

¼ds-ds- dkfr;k½

fnukad & 20-09-2013

milfpo]

e/; izns’k 'kklu

uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx

i`"Bka Øekad ,Q 6&39@2010@18&3 Hkksiky] fnukad 24 flrEcj] 2012A

It will be useful to reproduce Annexure P-2 dated 15.10.2012 which reads thus :

dk;kZy; uxj ikfydk fuxe Hkksiky

lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx

LFkkbZ vkns’k dzekad 18@2012

fo"k; %& uxj fuxe lhek varxZr Hkou fuekZ.k dh vuqefr ds lkFk ueZnkdj dk vf/kjksi.k ,oa olwyhA

ueZnkdj olwyus ds laca/k esa fuxe lfEeyu ladYi dzekad 04 fnukad 29@03@2012 ,oa LFkfxr lfEeyu fnukad 30@03@2012 vuqlkj Hkksiky uxj fuxe lhek ds vanj izR;sd Hkou Lokeh] izca/kd] O;oLFkkid] Hkkxhnkj ij Hkou fuekZ.k vuqefr ds lkFk olwyh gsrq ikfjr fd;s x;s izLrko ij e/; izns’k 'kklu uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx ea=ky; ds vkns'k dzekad ,Q 6&39@2010@18&3 Hkksiky fnukad 24 flrEcj 2012 ds }kjk fn;s x;s vuqeksnu vuqlkj vkosndksa ls Hkou fuekZ.k dh vuqefr ds le; fuEu rkfydk vuqlkj ueZnkdj dh njsa vkjksfir dh tkrh gS %&

dj Lkkj.kh ueZnkdj dh fu/kkZfjr nj %&

1- 500 oxZQhV rd 'kwU;

2- 500 oxZQhV ls 1000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 1@& izfr oxZQhV

3- 1000 oxZQhV ls 1500 oxZQhV rd :i;s 2@& izfr oxZQhV

4- 1500 oxZQhV ls 3000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 4@& izfr oxZQhV

5- 3000 oxZQhV ls 4000 oxZQhV rd :i;s 6@& izfr oxZQhV

6- 4000 oxZQhV ls mij :i;s 15@& izfr oxZQhV

ueZnkdj uohu fodflr gksrh dkWyksfu;ks ,oa Hkouks dh Hkou vuqX;k tkjh djrs le; vkosndksa leku Hkou fuekZ.k dh vuqefr ds lkFk dsoy ,d ckj izkIr dh tkosA laxzfgr ueZnkdj i`Fkd cSad [kkrs es tek fd;k tkosA ftldk mi;ksx dsoy ueZnk ifj;kstuk ds fy, vkjf{kr jgsxkA

rnuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh dh tkosA

¼jtuh’k JhokLro½

vkbZ- ,l-

vk;qDr

uxj fuxe Hkksiky

i`"Bka Øekad 654 704@lk- iz- fo- 2012 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-10-2012A

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned action on the ground that the same is not within the legislative competence of the State Government as it is not falling under Entry 49 of the List-I