JUDGMENT
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.
2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and the propriety of the notice dated 16-3-1996 and order dated 20-6-1996 as well as the warrant of attachment dated 3-9-1998 in relation to the demand of property tax by the Corporation. At the time of hearing of the matter on admission, this Court by order dated 22-11-1999 had permitted the petitioner to file an appropriate application to the respondents for re-consideration of the rateable value and consequently the tax payable by the petitioner. Undisputedly, such an application was filed by the petitioner and the respondents pursuant thereto reduced the quantum of tax demanded from the petitioner by issuing demand notice dated 30-11-2002. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard in the matter before taking any decision on the application filed by the petitioner. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that the order dated 22-11-1999 did not specifically directed the respondents to give personal hearing to the petitioner on such application.
3. Needless to say that the application of the petitioner for re-consideration of the rateable value and consequently the quantum of tax payable by the petitioner was mainly on account of certain fact-situation having been ignored by the authorities as it was the case of the petitioner that the building site in question was an abandoned building and the same ought to have been considered in the matter. Apparently, the petitioner was entitled to be heard in the matter to establish his case in that regard and to place before the authorities the relevant materials in support of his contentions. Merely because the order passed by this Court on 22-11-1999 did not specifically required the Corporation to grant personal hearing to the petitioner in the matter, it cannot be said that the authorities could have disposed of such a matter without adhering to the basic principles of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the order passed without hearing the petitioner in the matter cannot be sustained and therefore the demand made under the notice dated 30-11-2002 cannot be sustained.
4. Once it is admitted by the respondents themselves that there was justification for revision of the original order as it is a case of an abandoned building site and the said fact was not taken into consideration at the time of passing of the original order in relation to the rateable value of the building, needless to say that the original notice issued on 16-3-1996 and the order dated 20-6-1996 cannot be sustained, so also, the warrant of attachment dated 3-9-1998. However, at the same time in view of the fact that the assessment is to be done in relation to the past period on remand of the matter by this Court to the authorities, the petitioner shall not be entitled to make any change in the status quo, including in relation to the ownership and possession of the property till the assessment is finalised.
5. In the result, therefore, the petition is to be disposed of while setting aside the notice dated 16-3-1996 and order dated 20-6-1996 as well as the warrant of attachment dated 3-9-1998, so also the notice dated 30-11-2002 along with the order based on which the said notice was issued and the matter to be remanded to the respondent-Corporation to dispose of the application dated 18-5-2001 r/w the application dated 18-12-1999 after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with the provisions of law. Meanwhile, as already observed above, the petitioner shall maintain status quo in relation to the property in question. The rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
Rule made absolute.