1 2025:CGHC:44534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4626 of 2025 1 - Navin Kumar Gupta (In Person) S/o Late R.N. Gupta Aged About 43 Years Niwasi Maya Villa 4/7 Shastri Nagar, Supela, Bhilai Zila - Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv Nagriya Prashasan Vibhag Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Zila- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Aayukt Nagar, Palika Nigam Bhilai Tehsil Va Zila - Durg (C.G.) ----Respondents For Petitioner in person : Mr. Navin Kumar Gupta. For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02/09/2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025, 26,06,2025 and 07.08.2025, whereby the Municipal Corporation Commissioner Bhilai issued a notice to pay amount of Rs. 1,88,873/- as tax and 5 times difference amount i.e. Rs. 9,44,365/- and surcharge, totaling Rs. 11,93,672/- within 7 days, otherwise after expiry of the time period, a power letter will be issued against the petitioner under Section 175 of the Nagar Palika Act and the total outstanding amount will be recovered through confiscation as per rules, the entire responsibility of which will be of petitioner. 2. The petitioner in person submits that the petitioner was first asked to Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.04 18:12:34 +0530 2 investigate the self-declaration presented in Khasra No. 1586/43 by Bhilai Corporation on 29.01.2025 and not to investigate the entire land attached to it. The corporation exceeded its constitutional power and assessed the tax of Naveen Kumar Gupta's properties bearing khasra No. 1586/43 as well as other properties attached to it which are not even in the name of Naveen Kumar Gupta without giving any prior notice and also imposed a penalty of 05 times in it, which is a violation of natural justice. It is a violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 3. The petitioner in person submits that the property tax is paid by the petitioner to his land and no additional construction has been done on the said construction. Further, there is open land of other people adjacent to the said land, whose owner is not the petitioner. Despite that, it is illegal to calculate the property tax by adding the property of other people to the property of the petitioner. Hence, imposing 5 times penalty is also wrong/illegal. It is mentioned in Section 141 of CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Section 147 of CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 that property tax will be payable by the land owner only. It is unfair and wrong to impose commercial tax on the said open land which is rarely used. The corporation did not issue any notice to the separate owners and by assessing the tax of all the said properties, 05 times penalty was imposed by adding it to the property tax of the petitioner. Which is a violation of natural justice and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Petitioner in person submits that an application has been made in March 2023 to the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai for the regularization of the separate Khasra and road area of Rinki Agarwal. The regularization survey of the said property has been completed by Bhilai Municipal Corporation in the year 2023 which has been further sent to the Village and Investment Department and Rinki Agarwal does her own business on the said property which is in the name of Maya Greens and Maya Caterers and Decorators. Therefore, the said property is completely separate, which is also in the knowledge of the corporation. Despite that, determining the tax on the said property along with the property of the petitioner and imposing penalty on it is unfair and not fair and is a violation of Article-19 (1) G of the Constitution. 3 5. Petitioner in person further submits that the contention of the petitioner in person is that as per provision of Section 141 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956; the responsibility for payment of property tax shall be paid primarily by the owner thereof. Further, the regularization fees paid by the Smt. Rinki Agrawal, however notice has been issued to the petitioner for property tax. The petitioner has made objection under Section 147 of the Municipal Corporation act 1956 before the Commissioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, after lapse of 85 days, the concerned Commissioner has rejected his objection without assigning any reason. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by the petitioner and submits that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, there is a provision to file appeal to District Court under Section 149 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Section 149 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act provides as under: (1) if any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to the amount of tax assessed, an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to the District Court, whose decision shall be final. (2) Such appeal shall be presented to the District Court without thirty days from the date of the order passed under Section 148 and shall be accompanied by an extract from the register of objections containing the order objected to. 9. Section 148 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956 provides as under:- (1)Investigation of objections by Commissioner;(1) All such objections shall be entered in a register to be maintained for the purpose and on receipt of any objection, the Commissioner shall give a notice in writing to the objector of the time and place at which his 4 objection will be investigated. (2) At the time and place so fixed the Commissioner shall hear the objection, in the presence of the objector or his authorized agent if he appears, or may, for reasonable cause, adjourn the investigation. (3) When the objections has been determined, the order passed on such objection shall be recorded in the said register and if necessary an amendment made in the assessment list in accordance with the result of the objection. 10.Considering the said facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the petitioner in person as well as learned counsel for respondent, which reveals that the Commissioner has not followed norms of Section 148 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956. In this case, the petitioner has filed objection on 01.04.2025 which has been decided by the commissioner on 26.06.2025 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Commissioner has simply rejected the objection raised by the petitioner without assigning any reason as per Section 148 of the said Act, therefore order passed by the Commissioner dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/4) deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. 11.Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation concerned Bhilai to decide the objection raised by the petitioner in a objective manner after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12.Accordingly the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti