JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents, mainly respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the State of Bihar and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Urban Development Department to issue notification excluding two villages being. Kadru and Argora in the District of Ranchi from the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and further for an order restraining the Municipal Corporation from making any assessment and taking any steps for realisation of tax.
2. Petitioner’s case is that it is a registered society under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The Government of Bihar acquired land of area 155 acres being part of village Kadru and portion of, village Argora and delivered the land to the Society In 1965 for the purpose of development and construction of residential buildings for the members of the society. By an agreement dated 30.1.1969 executed by and between the Governor of Bihar and the Honorary Secretary of the Society about 152.36 acres of land was delivered and the tentative price for the sale of the land was fixed at Rs. 15,69,914.44. It is contended that petitioner/ society developed the land duly approved by the State Government by constructing roads, drainage, water supply, electric connection and sewage system etc. The Society paid full consideration amount to the State Government and spent huge amount for construction of culvert, bridges, home pipes, construction of water tower, shopping complex, community centre and roads etc. It is alleged that about Rs. 1.25 crores have been spent so far for development purposes. It is stated that petitioner/society purchased water directly from the PHED of the State Government and electricity from the Electricity Board. Petitioner’s further case is that petitioner/society is maintaining full-fledged office with Engineers. Supervisors, Security Officers and Guards, clerical staff and gardeners for proper maintenance of the colony. In 1977 the State Government issued a notification purported to be under Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 of its intention to include Thana No, 208. 209 being village Kadru and Argora respectively within the limits of Ranchi Municipality. By notification dated 31.10.77 Urban Development Department of the State of Bihar extended Ranchi Municipal Area by inclusion of Thana Nos. 208 and 209. After the establishment of Ranchi Municipal Corporation a Notification dated 15.9.1979 was published in which the aforesaid Thana Nos. 208. 207/206 i.e. Kadru and Argora were included. Petitioner’s case is that society represented to the State Government in the matter of aforesaid two notifications and the Government after realising its mistake issued another notification dated 14.4.1983 inviting objection for exclusion of these two Thanas from the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. When the State Government did not pass any order, petitioner-society moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 1774/89(R). The writ application was disposed of by judgment dated 4.8.1990 holding that since by aforementioned notifications dated 23.7.1977 and 31.10.1977 the area in question have been included within Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the two villages will remain in the limit of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. This Court further held that so far notification dated 14.4.1983 inviting objection for exclusion of aforesaid two villages from the limits of the Corporation, it is for the State Government to decide whether it will take further action in the matter. Petitioner then filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 155518/90. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court but liberty was given to the petitioner to move the Government or the High Court for a mandamus to issue final notification in pursuance of notification dated 14.4.1983. Petitioner-society then made rep-
resentation to the State Government for exclusion of two villages and when no order was passed this writ application has been filed for appropriate direction to the State Government to exclude the aforesaid two villages from the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar and the Urban Development Department, it is stated that the preliminary notification dated 14.4.1983 in which Government notified their intention to excluding two villages namely. Kadru and Argora from the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation was issued on the recommendation of the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is stated that in the writ petition being CWJC No. 1774/89(R) this Court directed the member of the petitioner-society to submit their return as required under Section 134 of Patna Municipal Corporation Act and further directed the Executive Officer of the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law. The respondent’s further case is that the residential area of the society is in the village Kadru and Argora and these two villages were long before the part and parcel of the then Ranchi Municipality and subsequently after the constitution of Ranchi Municipal Corporation these two villages automatically included in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.
4. In the year 1998 petitioner filed supplementary affidavit and brought some new facts on the record. It is stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cancelled its earlier notification dated 14.4.1983 by issuing another notification dated 17.7.1991. It is alleged that this notification has been intentionally issued in order to frustrate the entire purpose of the writ application and on the basis of that notification the authority of the Corporation started its process for realisation of Municipal tax from the members of the petitioner-society. It is further stated that the petitioner ultimately entered into an agreement on 3.7.1992 with the Ranchi Municipal Corporation whereby interim arrangement by way of agreement dated 3.7.1992 has been made without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in this writ application. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation it is stated that by notification dated 17.9.1991 the earlier notification dated 14.4.1983 has been withdrawn and it has been held that the area of the petitioner-society shall continue to be covered within the area of the Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner- society voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Corporation on 3.7.1992 and agreed to pay consolidated taxes. It is further stated that Corporation provides basis civic amenities in the Kadru and Argora area including supply of drinking water, cleaning the area providing tube wells etc. It is further contended that the petitioner-society never challenged the notification of the year 1977 whereby two villages were included within the erstwhile municipality. It is only after the Corporation was constituted by notification dated 15.9.1979 and steps had been taken for realisation of Municipal Tax, petitioner moved this Court praying for excluding the area of the society from the Corporation area.
5. I have heard Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner-society and Mr, N. K. Prasad. learned Sr. counsel for the Municipal Corporation.
6. Mr. P.K. Sinha, mainly contended that notifications dated 23.7.1977 and 31.10.1977 including part of these two villages into the then Ranchi Municipality itself was wholly illegal and without jurisaiction inasmuch as before issuing notification no notice was given to the petitioner-society or to the public in general and also for the reason that the land in question was sold by the State Government to the Society for development of residential buildings as early as in the year 1969. Learned counsel further submitted that notification dated 15.9.1979 including aforesaid are a into the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is absolutely illegal and ultra vires inasmuch as no notice was given to the society or its members before issuing the said notification. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned notification purported to include the area is nothing but an accidental action of the Government which needs correction by issuance of necessary notification.
7. On the other hand. Mr. N.K. Prasad. firstly submitted that the instant writ application is barred by principle of res judicata. Learned counsel then submitted that it was for the State Government to decide as to which area shall be included or excluded within the municipal limit and no notice to public is required for the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the inclusion of the area of Argora and Kadru was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed and the judgment and order was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submitted that accepting the power of the State Government and the Corporation the petitioner-society entered into an agreement and agreed to pay municipal taxes. In that view of the matter this writ application has no merit.
8. The legality and validity of the notifications dated 23.7.1977 and 31.10.1977 whereby these two villages were included within the Municipal area and the notification dated 14.4.1983 have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in CWJC No. 1774/89(R). For better appreciation, para 7 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow :
“We have already noticed that in the counter-affidavit, respondents No. 2 and 3 stated that villages Kadru and Argora became part of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in 1979 when it was constituted as these villages were within the Ranchi Municipality from 31.10.1977. In other words, when the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was created, the area which was within the Ranchi Municipality was included in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute that the State Government has power to exclude an area which has been included in the Municipal Corporation, and for this a draft notification as contained in Annexure-5 was issued under Section 2(3) (a) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978 proposing to exclude villages Kadru and Argora and calling for objection. Section 2(3)(b) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act. 1978 provides that on expiry of the said period of six weeks and after considering any objection or suggestion which may be received by the State Government within the said period, the State Government may make such amendments in the draft or alter the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation under Sub-section (1) of this section as it may consider necessary. The State Government, if decided to exclude the two villages, was required to publish further notification excluding villages Kadru and Argora from the limit of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Till such a notification is issued, in view of the fact that the two villages were part of the Ranchi Municipality and were included
within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation when it was created, the two villages shall continue to remain within the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Annexure-5 being a draft notification, any statement made therein must be held to be tentative. On the basis of the facts brought on record, it must be held that both the villages Kadru and Argora are within the limits of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It follows that Ranchi Municipal Corporation has jurisdiction to make demands under the PMC Act, 1951 which is applicable to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.”
9. Admittedly, the notification dated 14.4.1983 has been subsequently withdrawn by another notification dated 17.9.1991, as a result of which the area of the petitioner-society shall continue to be covered within the area of the Corporation. It was only after the notification dated 17.9.1991 the petitioner-society entered into an agreement with the Corporation on 3rd July, 1992, whereby it was agreed, inter alia, that the petitioner-society will pay to the Corporation the consolidated municipal tax including cess at the rate of Rs. 6.5 lacs per year in 4 equal instalments. It was also agreed by the petitioner that the Municipal tax shall be payable by the society from 1st January, 1992.
10. In course of argument. Mr. P.K. Sinha. learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the State Government by notification may determine and declare its intention to include or exclude any area within the limit of area of the Municipality or the Municipal Corporation. It has come on record that when by notification dated 14.4.1983 issued by the State Government showing its intention to exclude these two villages from the Municipal Corporation, the inhabitants of two villages raised serious objections and ultimately the State Government, after considering the objections from various corners and also considering the fact that the two villages fall in the heart of the town, issued a notification dated 17.9.1991 whereby the earlier notification dated 14.4.1983 has been cancelled. Admittedly, the area occupied by the petitioner-society is a very small portion of one of the two villages known as Kadru. It cannot be disputed that these two villages namely. Kadru and Argora are in the heart of the town and also fall within the urban agglomeration. I have failed
to understand why lacs of people of two villages shall be deprived of from amenities provided by the Corporation merely because the petitioner-society insisting for excluding the two villages within the area of Municipal Corporation. When the Government, on consideration of various representations and objections, decided to include the certain area within the Corporation, the High Court is not supposed to interfere with such decision of the Government unless the action of the Government is mala fide or it violates the principles of natural justice. In my opinion, in such action of the State Government either excluding or including the area within the limit of Municipal Corporation, the rules of the natural justice are not applicable. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kolyalal Bhathiya v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1991 SC 1892).
11. having regard to the facts and cir
cumstances of the case and the discussions
made above, I do not find any merit in this
writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.
12. Application dismissed.