Ram Bharose Sharma Vs State of M.P. & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a petition filed by Ram Bharose Sharma as Pro Bono Publico, has upheld resolutions passed by the Administrator of Gwalior Municipal Corporation that require property owners/applicants to pay Rs. 5,000/- as publication charges for mutation notices. The petitioner had sought to quash these resolutions, arguing that the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, does not contemplate such a mechanism or empower the Corporation to charge mutation fees.
The petitioner contended that Section 167 of the Act of 1956 does not authorize the charging of mutation fees for publication of notices. To support this position, reliance was placed on previous Division Bench judgments of the same High Court: Awas Smasya Niwaran Sansthan Vs. Municipal Corporation, Indore [1986 (1) MPWN 290] and Ward Sudhar Samiti, Gwalior Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior [1991 MPJR 137]. These judgments, according to the petitioner, underscored the arbitrary and illegal nature of such impositions.
Conversely, the State Government argued that it possesses sufficient control powers under Part IX, Chapter XXXVI of the Act of 1956, and suggested the petitioner could approach the State Government under Section 421 for redressal. The Municipal Corporation vehemently opposed the petition, asserting its power to impose fees via resolution under Section 133 of the Act of 1956, citing Supreme Court decisions in Madan Gopal Agarwal Vs. District Magistrate, Allahabad [AIR 1972 SC 2656] and Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others [(2014) 9 SCC 105]. The Corporation further explained that Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rule, 2016, allows for inviting objections through newspaper publication, asserting that the charge is for transparency and dispute avoidance, not unjust enrichment. They highlighted that applicants could also arrange the publication themselves in the prescribed format without incurring the Corporation’s charge. Thus, the Corporation maintained it was a “procedural/incidental” charge, not a mutation fee per se.
