1 2025:CGHC:27611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3176 of 2025 JK Lakshmi Cement Limited, The Sr. Vice President (Works), Malpuri Khurd, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, Dist Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Durg, Dist Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipality Of Ahiwara, Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ankur Pandey Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, Municipality Of Ahiwara, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh.. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. N. Naha Roy & Mr. Nikitesh Gupta, Advocates For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/06/2025 2 1. The petitioner has been preferred this writ petition with the following relief(s) : “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and quash and the order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the entire proceeding of reassessment of property tax for the same being absolutely arbitrary and without jurisdiction on the part of the respondent No.:3/4. 10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned herein suffering from vice of absolute arbitrariness and being outcome of unilateral exercise of power causing undue harassment and agony needs a suitable intervention by this Court. The order impugned herein being in continuation of the earlier orders dated 24.04.2025/12.03.2025 suffering from self- contradiction on account of mentioning the amount of property tax to be paid and at the same time asking the petitioner to participate in the measurement of the premises for the purpose of assessment of property tax is misconceived in law and as such deserves to be quashed by this Court. He further contended that the order impugned herein being in continuation of the earlier orders dated 24.04.2025/12.03.2025 is instrumental to opening of the issue of 3 payment of property tax for the year 2015-16 despite the same having already settled way back after lapse of a decade is nothing but an instrument of recovering undue tax from the petitioner causing a great harassment to it, which being contrary to the common industrial policy of the State deserves suitable intervention of this Court. He further contended that the order impugned herein showing intransigence on part of the respondent No.: 3/4 for repeatedly asking the petitioner to submit permission to construct buildings/infrastructure despite being pointed out of having no jurisdiction in view of the petitioner governing with the Adhiniyam of 1973, ousting its jurisdiction with a non-obstante clause as available under section 13(3) of it, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is badly called for to protect the petitioner from undue harassment and agony. He further contended that the petitioner having obtained all due permissions from the competent authority on payment of requisite fee under Adhiniyam of 1973 as explained above is a law abiding company and deserves protection against the impudence shown by the respondent No.: 3/4. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P/1 notice has been issued by respondent No.3 on the basis of notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the State Government. This Court has passed the order WP(T) No.02/2018 vide a detailed judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 and held that there is complete disregard to the procedure prescribed under Section 133-B of the Act, 1956. “28. ……….., but the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation on its own proceeded to hold the memo dated 31-8-2015 which is only a notice under Section 133-B holding the same to be an order by the State Government which is the controlling and higher authority of the Corporation, passed order enhancing the annual letting value of the property as well as property tax, as such, there is no order under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 requiring the Municipal Corporation to enhance the annual letting value of the property and it has been enhanced only on the basis of notice dated 31-8-2015 issued by the State Government as such, there is complete disregard to 5 the procedure prescribed in Section 133-B of the Act of 1956. 44. In the present case, the act of the respondent Corporation in recovering. the enhanced tax in breach of Article 265 of the Constitution of India is nothing but fraud on the Constitution of India and the Act of 1956 and it is a breach of faith of the public at large. Therefore, I consider it just and appropriate to impose exemplary cost on it. This is imperative as it would discourage the Corporation to recover property tax in future unauthorisedly. Cost imposed on the Municipal Corporation is quantified as ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) for indulging in illegally recovering huge property tax from the petitioner/assessee. Cost will be deposited within a period of four weeks to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Service Committee." 6. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court which has been registered as WP(C) No.2255/2025 and this Court has passed the order on 09.05.2025, in which it is observed in Para-7, 9 & 10 are as under : 6 “7. Respondent No. 3 is directed to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit its reply, documents, and any objections regarding the alleged outstanding dues. The authorities shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereafter pass a reasoned order after considering the submissions of petitioner and all the relevant materials. Further, the premises of the petitioner shall be measured for the purpose of assessment of tax in accordance with law, in the week commencing 26th May, 2025. The measurement shall be carried out in the presence of the petitioner or its authorized representative. Considering the huge surrounding of the premises of petitioner, the petitioner is also advised to extend full cooperation and assistance to the authorities so that the process may be conducted smoothly and efficiently. 9. Considering aforesaid aspect of the intervention application, particularly taking note of the fact that notice dated 24.04.2025 has been issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara, the intervention application is allowed. It is further directed that wherever in the record or proceedings respondent No. 3 has been described as "Chief Executive Officer, 7 Ahirwara" the same shall be read and construed as "Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara". 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.” 7. The notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.3 seeking required documents with regard to permission of construction of building and other related documents. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that no coercive order has been passed by the respondent No.3 or 4 against the petitioner. 9. On perusal of the Annexure P-1, it reveals that respondent No.3 has given direction to the petitioner to file documents and petitioner has right to submit its reply or any other objection regarding the alleged outstanding dues based upon that notification dated 31.08.2015 and also petitioner has right to raise objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, therefore, it is directed to the petitioner to file all its documents, and submits of its reply, if any, all the objections before respondent No.3 within a period of ‘20 days’ from today and in-turn respondent No.3 shall examine all the documents/objections presented by the petitioner as raised in the writ petition and decide the same by reasoned order within a period 8 of ‘45 days’ from the date of receipt of documents and reply of the petitioner, in accordance with relevant rules, regulations and law. 10. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court and shall decide the case of the petitioner on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid observation & direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant