1 2026:CGHC:27465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 118 of 2022 1 - Shyamal Mallik S/o S.K. Mallik Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Durparoad, Korba, Ward No. 03, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Bhanumati Mallik W/o Santosh Mallik Aged About 76 Years Resident Of Durparoad, Korba Ward No. 3, Korba , Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - The Revenue Officer Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Samsun Samual Masih and Mr. Shubham Dev Mallick, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : : Ms. Anuradh Jain, Dy.Govt. Advocate Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sandhya Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned orders/notices 17.03.2022 & 19.03.2022 (Annexure P/1). Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.07 14:29:48 +0530 2 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Mr. Samsun Samual Masih, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Survey No. 278/1 which is a house, situated at Pt. Ravishankar Nagar, Podi-Bahar, Korba is joint property of petitioners and his mother and siblings. He would submit that the said property was partitioned amongst the members of the family on 23.02.2013 and revenue record was mutated on 15.06.2019, but respondent No. 2 has issued property tax demand notices against the petitioners herein on 17.03.2022 and 19.03.2022. He would submit that sufficient documents were submitted before the respondent No. 2, but till date no enquiry has been conducted and the entire property tax is being recovered from the petitioners. He would pray to quash the orders / demand notices dated 17.03.2022 and 19.03.2022. 3. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioners should have submitted all relevant documents including order of partition and mutation in the office of respondent No. 2. He would submit that as sufficient documents were not produced in the office of respondent No. 2, therefore, demand notices have rightly been issued against the petitioners. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Anuradha Jain, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 would submit that there is dispute between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of the documents annexed along with the writ petition would show that Survey No. 278/1 was partitioned amongst the family members on 23.02.2013 and the order of mutation was passed on 21.01.2019. Perusal of documents would further reveal that the respondent No. 2 was duly informed in this regard, but demand notices dated 17.03.2022 and 19.03.2022 have been issued against the petitioners herein. The respondent No. 2 should have enquired into the matter before issuance of demand notices for recovery of property tax to the tune of Rs.5,51,867/- from petitioner No. 1 and Rs.4,03,189/- from petitioner No. 2. 7. Having considered the above discussed facts, the demand notices dated 17.03.2022 and 19.03.2022 issued against the the petitioners respectively are hereby quashed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to enquire into the matter and take a fresh decision with regard to recovery of the property tax from the petitioners and other co- coparceners according to area of their possession. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti