IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 2096 of 2004
---
Rama Shanker prasad ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar through its Special Officer
.... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Prasad
For the State : J.C. to G.P. III
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Jha
---
7. 12.5.2010
: This writ petition has been filed against re-assessment of
holding tax by the respondent-municipality.
Mr. S. N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the said re-assessment is highly
exorbitant, inasmuch as the earlier tax was about Rs. 200/- per
year, whereas it has been enhanced to about Rs. 1360.16 per
year. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given
opportunity of hearing before re-assessment of tax.
On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Jha, learned counsel
appearing for respondent, submitted that the tax is to be
enhanced/reassessed every 5 years, but for one or other reason,
it could not be enhanced after 1983, till 1996-97 and therefore, it
cannot be said that re-assessment is exorbitant. He further
submitted that after assessment, valuation of holding was fixed at
Rs. 4,500/-. The petitioner objected to the same by filing form-C.
From Annexure-4 itself, it will appear that notice was served on
him on receipt of form-C, but he did not choose to appear and
ultimately the respondents after taking into consideration the
entire matter passed order on 24.4.1999 reducing the value from
Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 3,500/-. Referring to Paragraph-5, he further
submitted that it was found that petitioner owned and possessed
a double-storeyed building, situated in the heart of town at
Surajmal Road, consisting of four big rooms, four shops, two
kitchens, two veranda and water connection in the house. He
also relied on a judgment in the case of Sidhnath Singh v. State
of Jharkhand, reported in 2004(3) JLJR 498.
After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that there is no
merit in this writ petition. Firstly, the petitioner objected to the re-
assessment of the tax in the year 1999, and thus he was fully
aware about the proceeding, but he waited and then filed this
writ petition after abut five years, only when the demand notice
dated 6.4.2004 was served on him. Secondly, it is not disputed
that the tax assessment was made in the year 1983 and
thereafter in 1996-97. It is true that Municipality should have
made re-assessment of tax every 5 years, but the petitioner
cannot complain that the re-assessment is highly exorbitant. It
further appears that re-assessment has been done after following
the procedure provided in that regard.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. The
interim order dated 19.4.2004 stands vacated. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
MK