1 2026:CGHC:23957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 101 of 2020 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through Its Executive Engineer, Shri Yuvraj Dewangan, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Municipal Council Through Chief Municipal Officer, District-Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.06.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “i. To call for the entire records of the case; ii. To kindly quash the demand notice dated 03/09/2019 and 14/02/2020 and declare such notices as illegal and without authority of law as the Petitioner Company is not liable for payment of property tax in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961; or alternatively; iii. To direct the Respondent Council to decide the representation dated 02/01/2020 made by the Petitioner company. REKHA SINGH 2 iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the Petitioner.” 2) Mr. Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.03.2003 leased out land bearing survey No.911 and 912 in favour of the petitioner company for the purposes of construction and maintenance of sub- station. He would further submit that respondent No.1 issued demand notice to the petitioner for payment of property tax for year 2019-2020 to the tune of Rs.41,250/-. He would contend that the petitioner Company is exempted to make payment of tax according to the provisions of Section 127-A(2)(a)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.1 and the said authority may be directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law within stipulated time. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would oppose submissions. He would submit that though the land was allotted to the petitioner by the State Government but respondent No.1 has right to levy tax on building constructed over it. 4) Ms. Jain, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.2 would support the contentions made by Mr. Sharma. 5) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6) Taking into consideration submissions advanced by the petitioner, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.1 within a period of 45 days from today and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it in an objective manner within further period of 60 days. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha