ORDER
U.L. Bhat, C.J.
1. Common question of law arises for decision in these two revision petitions. Hence they arc heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The only question arising for consideration in these revisions is whether the Municipal Corporation originally and the District Court in appeal committed an error of law or of jurisdiction in holding that property tax is leviable on the revision petitioners (Central Warehousing Corporation) under the provisions of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The Municipal Corporation as well as the District Court took the view that the exemption under Section 136(a)(i) of the Act will not apply to the building and lands in question. The correctness of this view is now challenged.
3. The only contention urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the buildings and lands appurtenant to the revision petitioners (Central Warehousing Corporation) is covered by the exemption R. F. 10 in Section 136(a)(i) of the Act. By virtue of this provision, property tax levied under Section 135 of the Act shall not be leviable, inter alia, in respect of buildings and lands owned by or vesting in the Union Government.
4. The Warehousing Corporation is a statutory Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. Section 3 of the said Act empowers the Central Govt. to establish a Corporation which shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and to sue and be sued. Section 4 deals with share capital and shareholders. Section 5 deals with shares to be guaranteed by Central Govt. and to be trust or approved securities. The management vests in a Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. Different sets of Directors are to be nominated by the Central Government, National Cooperative Development Corporation, State Bank and some other Directors are to be elected by other Scheduled Banks, Cooperative Societies etc. The Managing Director is to be appointed by the Central Bank. The Central Bank has been conferred certain powers in relation to the functioning of the Corporation.
5. It is true that the petitioner Corporation is a creature of the statute created on the initiative of the Central Govt. and that the Central Govt. has substantial influence over the functioning of the Corporation. The Act makes it clear that the Corporation is a body corporate having perpetual seal and succession with power to acquire, hold and dispose of the property. The buildings in question are assets of the Corporation and, therefore, cannot be said to be owned by or vested in the Central Govt. The position of statutory Corporation is, in this respect, better than that of a limited company incorporated at the instance of the Govt. of India] Even in case of a Company, the Supreme Court, in Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Special Area Development Authority, Korba and Anr., AIR 1982 SC 697, held that even though the entire share capital of the companies has been subscribed by the Govt. of India, it cannot be predicated that the companies themselves are owned by the Govt. of India. The companies which are incorporated under the Companies Act, have a corporate personality of their own, distinct from that of the Govt. of India. The lands and buildings are vested in and owned by the Companies, the Government of India only owns the share capital. The same approach has to be adopted in case of the statutory Corporation like the petitioner.
6. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to the exemption claimed by them. The revision petitions are dismissed, but without costs.