1 2025:CGHC:34526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3789 of 2025 1 - Ashish Tiwari S/o Late Shri Mochan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Chandi Mandir Road Brahampara, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Office At Supela Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. K.K. Pushparjini W/o Late Tcr Gangadharam Aged About 91 Years R/o Ajay Murgi Farm Purani Basti Supela Bhilai Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal along with Mr. Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by 2 respondent no. 1 i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai (C.G.) passed in case No./ 2025/316, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to correct the record as prior to 12.06.2025 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to take proper action against the respondent no. 1 as respondent no. 1 has exceeded his jurisdiction. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 whereby the respondent no. 1, i.e., Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai has changed the I.D. for property tax for the land which is the land of father of the petitioner. Only on the basis of presumption, the Commissioner has held that the respondent no. 2 is the owner of the above land, therefore, passed the order for change of I.D. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that there is alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 403(3) of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 against the order of the Commissioner, Bhilai. 3 4. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 403(3) of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 provides as under: “403. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner and subordinate officers- (3) Such appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a committee to be called the “Appellate Committee” appointed by the Corporation.” 6. It is crystal clear that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 403(3) of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Thus, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before appropriate forum, if so desire. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima