Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that factum of non-use and even handing over of tenancy and later resumption of possession was never in knowledge of Corporation. Further, valuation was undisputedly changed. Accordingly, the rate which was applicable at the relevant point of time is applied by the Corporation.
Facts- After getting actual possession of the property, Appellant Waqf Committee inquired details with regard to municipal tax about this property, but same was not responded and as such one another request in the form of application came to be made to consider assessment of property from the year 2000 as non-use tenanted premises in view of the decree and requested to consider reduction of tax amount.
However, Corporation on 4.7.20 15 was pleased to reject the application and since details have not been provided, appellant was constrained to prefer an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and later on, information was provided on 3.8.2016 along with statement of assessment from the year 2001-2002 to 2016-2017. On receiving such information, appellant Committee came to know that yearly assessment which was fixed at Rs.4530/- for the year 2000-2001 is increased from 2001-2002 onwards at Rs.24,871/- and further increase was made from 2009-2010 to Rs.30,398/- which was later on further increased from the year 2013-2014 to Rs.38,688/-.
Conclusion- Held that since the property or portion of premises in question is not treated as a separate property for the purpose of assessment, we are of the opinion that there is no fault on the part of Corporation in arriving at any valuation. Additionally, it is a well established cannon of construction that Court should read the section as it is and cannot re-write it to suit its convenience in such a manner which may render the provision to some extent otiose.
Factum of non-use and even handing over of tenancy and later resumption of possession was never in knowledge of Corporation which fact is also not in dispute. Hence, the rate which was applicable at the relevant point of time is applied by the Corporation which aspect has been gone into by both the authorities, namely by learned Trial Judge as well as by competent authority of Corporation and as such, in the absence of any distinguishable material, we are unable to dislodge the conclusion which has been arrived at on the basis of very same material. Hence, we see no irregularity in the order passed by learned Trial Judge.
Further, it was stated that property was not used and closed since the year 2000. But, before the Corporation could be briefed, valuation was undisputedly changed. So, statutory lapse of the appellant cannot permit the Court to apply a different standard simply because it is a registered Charitable Trust and background of the case is such. Hence, from overall consideration of the material on record, we are of the view that appeal lacks merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. This group of First Appeals is arising out of a common question of law and challenging basically the action of respondent authority of charging valuation with respect to the properties belonging to the appellants. Since common question of law has arisen, learned advocates appearing for the respective sides have requested that hearing of all these appeals may be taken up together and hence for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No.3703 of 2017 is treated as a lead matter.
2. Brief background of the case is that property situated at Chankleshwar Mahadev Ward, Ahmedabad bearing Municipal Tenement No.0105-11-0551-0011-C, Survey No.1285 of Municipal Census No.864 is a Waqk property being managed by appellant, i.e. Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘Waqf’) was given on rent to one Maganbhai Sankalchand Gaur for business purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.86.62 and tenant was doing business in the property in the name of ‘Sharda Hindu Lodge’ and after death of said tenant Maganbhai S. Gaur, his legal heirs continued to be in possession and as per the terms, municipal tax and other taxes were required to be paid by said tenant, i.e. Maganbhai Sankalchand Gaur (original tenant).
3. It is the case of appellant that after earthquake in the year 2001, property became dilapidated, as a result of which under Section 133(D) of Code of Criminal Procedure, Senior Police Inspector, Khadia was pleased to issue notice on 18.6.2001 to pull down the premises as the same was in a dangerous condition. The property then remained un-utilized, as a result of which, appellant Waqk Committee instituted HRP Suit No.238 of 2012 before learned Small Causes Court for securing possession as premise in question was not used for more than a period of six months prior to filing of suit. On consideration of the material, suit came to be decreed in favour of appellant on 22.4.2014 and after execution of said decree, actual possession of property was received by appellant- Waqf Committee on 25.4.2015. Upon receipt of said possession, Appellant Waqf Committee inquired details with regard to municipal tax about this property, but same was not responded and as such one another request in the form of application came to be made to consider assessment of property from the year 2000 as non-use tenanted premises in view of the decree and requested to consider reduction of tax amount. However, Corporation on 4.7.20 15 was pleased to reject the application and since details have not been provided, appellant was constrained to prefer an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and later on, information was provided on 3.8.20 16 along with statement of assessment from the year 2001-2002 to 2016-2017. On receiving such information, appellant Committee came to know that yearly assessment which was fixed at Rs.4530/- for the year 2000-2001 is increased from 2001-2002 onwards at Rs.24,871/- and further increase was made from 2009-2010 to Rs.30,398/- which was later on further increased from the year 2013-2014 to Rs.38,688/-.
4. It is the case of the appellant that this fact being noticed by appellant, feeling aggrieved by said valuation, Municipal Valuation Appeal No.6 of 2017 was filed before learned Small Causes Court challenging the assessment for the year 2016- 2017 in present lead appeal and simultaneously for other assessment years, separate valuation appeals were filed challenging the assessment of all these years right from 2001- 2002 to 2016-2017. These appeals were heard by learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and by an identical order, learned Small Causes Court was pleased to dismiss the valuation appeals filed by the appellants on 18.7.2017, which order is made the subject matter of present First Appeal under Section 411 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘GPMC Act’).
5. Present lead appeal has been filed, as said earlier, for the assessment year 2016-2017, whereas other cognate appeals which are attached with this group are arising out of the very same controversy and no new facts are to be taken from those appeals except year of assessment and appeal numbers are different. Table showing First Appeals number, Municipal Valuation Appeal number and Assessment year is as under:-
