1981 Supreme(MP) 379

G. P. Singh, C. J, and Faizan Uddin, J.
State Bank of Indore v. Property Tax Officer.
Misc. Pet. No. 50 of 1974 (J); Decided on 11-7-1981.

Headnote:Nagariya Sthawor Sampati Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 -S.5 (II) (c) and Rule 4 (10) (v)-assessment of tax on open plot- factors for consideration -what are-prevailing rents in neighborhood-should be considered-Consideration of price of and only-not sufficient.

        The petitioner is owner of plot No.3/5, yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore. The plot was purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 3,09,375/-. By order dated 25th October 1975 passed by the Property Tax Officer, the annual letting value of the plot was determined at Rs. 14,448/- and Property Tax was assessed for the years 1966-67 to 1974-75. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner which was dismissed (date appears to be wrong). The petitioner preferred second appeal before the Deputy Property Tax Commissioner. It was also dismissed on 13th June 1977. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of all these orders.

        Held: A reading of the order of the Property Tax Officer as also the orders of the appellate authorities goes to show that the annual letting value for all the relevant years was fixed at ½0 of the price at which the plot was purchased by the petitioner. This was presumably done having regard to clause (v) of rule 4 (10), A reading of the order further goes to show that except taking into account the nature of the locality where the plot was situated and the value of the plot no other factor was taken into account. The Property Tax Officer as also the appellate authorities were bound to have regard to the prevailing rents in the neighourhood which is the clear requirement of section 5 (11) (c). It does not appear from a reading of the orders that any regard was paid to the prevailing rents of open land in the neighbourhood or any effort was made to find out what were the prevailing rents. The authorities also ought to have taken into account the use to which the land was being put. In this connection the petitioners contention was that construction work was being done on· almost the entire plot and no person would have taken it on rent. It was not open to the authorities to fix the annual letting value by taking into account only the price at which the plot was purchased by the petitioner and the locality where it was situated. As all the revelant factors have not been taken into account, the impugned orders assessing the petitioners plot to tax cannot be sustained.

        The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. It would be open to the Property Tax Officer to re-determine the annual letting value for all the relevant years having regard to all the relevant factors mentioned in section 5 (ii) (c) and rule 4 (10) and to assets the same to tax in case the annual letting value so determined is beyond the exemption limit. Petition allowed.