IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19349 of 2018 ======================================================

Daya Shankar Prasad S/o Late Chhedi Lal Prasad, Resident of Mairwa Nai Bazar, P.O. and P.S.- Mairwa, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chairman, Mairwa Nagar Panchayat, Mairwa, District- Siwan. 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Mairwa, District- Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abbas Haider- SC 6 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

4 06-01-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the demand notices, dated 20.06.2018, issued by the Executive Officer, Mairwa Nagar Panchayat, Mairwa, Siwan, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 70,278/- and Rs. 7,948/- as holding tax for the years 2008-09 to 2018-19, d £

for holding nos. 356 ( ) and 356 ( ), along with interest.

demand notices, issued by the authorities for collection of

filed the self-assessment of the holding area and the

not incur such a huge amount as demanded by the Executive Officer, Mairwa Nagar Panchayat, Mairwa, Siwan.

4. No one appears for Nagar Panchayat, Mairwa, despite valid service of notice.

5. Learned Counsel for the State argued that the petitioner has the efficacious alternative remedy under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (in short, ‘2007 Act’) inasmuch as under Section 141 of the 2007 Act, the petitioner has the remedy to file an objection before the Chief Municipal Officer against the demand notices within a period of 30 days, which would be investigated by the Chief Municipal Officer under Section 142 of the 2007 Act and objection filed by the aggrieved person shall be determined by an order passed on such objection. If any person or assessee is dissatisfied with the determination or fixation of the holding tax by the Chief Municipal Officer, an appeal can be filed under Section 143 of the

2007 Act before the District Judge.

approached this Court against the demand notices without availing the remedy provided under Sections 141 to 143 of the 2007 Act.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the nature of dispute, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application for review of the holding tax under Section 141 of the 2007 Act before the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government within a period of 30 days from today.

8. If such an application is filed, the concerned authority shall be obliged to decide the objection of the petitioner by a reasoned order after hearing the objector and all other concerned parties.

9. It goes without saying that if the petitioner remains dissatisfied with the determination of the holding tax, as decided by the competent officer, he shall have the remedy of appeal before the learned Principal District Judge.

10.With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ application is disposed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

Prabhakar Anand/-

U √