Full Judgment
V.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1 5-2-1 999 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4/98 confirming the order dated 29-1-1996 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, in Case No. 21/130-95-96, the appeal has been dismissed.
2. Applicant is the owner of House No. 404 which is situated at Civil Lines, Raipur. Earlier the property tax of the accommodation of the applicant was fixed as Rs. 324/- per annum on the basis of the assessment of annual rent of applicant's house as Rs. 5,400/-. Non-applicant reassessed the applicant whereby annual rental value of applicant's house was increased as Rs. 56,160/-and property tax was assessed to Rs. 11,232/-. applicant objected the assessment and filed his objection. Non-applicant fixed the case for hearing and thereafter vide notice dated 29-1-1996 communicated the order to the applicant. The annual rent of the house was assessed to Rs. 47.520/- and the property tax was fixed as Rs. 9,504/- per annum. Applicant being aggrieved with the order communicated to him filed an appeal under Section 149 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). The appeal was heard and vide impugned order dated 15-2-1999 was disposed of.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that no proper notice in accordance with Section 146 of the Act, has been served on him and no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant contended that proper notice has been served on the applicant and the applicant without challenging the validity of notice appeared and contested the dispute and was allowed proper opportunity to contest the assessment.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant relying on the decision rendered in case of Vijay Kumar s/o Sumerchand Bajhal v. Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore reported in 1988 MPLJ 749 andJ.C Mills Ltd., Gwalior v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Anr. reported in 1985 MPLJ 380, contended that without service of legal notice and proper opportunity, the order passed by the Commissioner is illegal.
5. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the applicant was served with notice as required under law, who after receiving the notice appeared before the Authority and objected that the reassessment is excessive, therefore, he was allowed opportunity of hearing, he appeared and admitted that the first storey of the house has been let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.200/-and on his admission the assessment of ground floor was also assessed on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 2,200/-. From the record, it is also apparent that the applicant never raised any objection before the Authority regarding validity of notice served on him under Section 146 of the Act and apparently from the record it is clear that he not only filed written objection but also participated in hearing and the Authority reassessed the property tax in fact on his own admission.
6. Appellate Court also considered all these facts and held that notice under Section 146 of the Act, has been served on the applicant and proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to him. Learned Appellate Court also held that the order passed by the Commissioner is in accordance with law and procedure and no interference is called for.
7. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the valid notice in accordance with Section 146 of the Act, has been served on the applicant, who without challenging the validity of notice appeared, filed objection and also on service of notice for hearing, appeared and participated the proceeding and on his own statement assessment has been made. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Authority which requires interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
8. In the result, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
9. Parties to bear their own costs.