SCA/8247/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8247 of 2008 ========================================================= RATILAL DESHABHAI LUHAR & 20 - Petitioner(s) Versus CHIEF OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VK JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 21. MR JASWANT K SHAH for Respondent: 3 ========================================================= CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 18/06/2008 ORAL ORDER
Leave
to amend the petition is granted. The petitioners are permitted to
add the Director of Municipalities as the respondent No.3 to the
petition.
This
petition has been filed by the petitioners, who according to the
averments made in the petition, are the lease holders and in
possession of plots situated in GIDC Amreli, known as Udyog Nagar.
According to the averments made in the petition, the plots were
allotted on lease for a period of 99 years and the said land was
acquired by the GIDC, Amreli, which constructed sheds upon the said
land which were later on allotted to the petitioners. As per the
averments made in the petition, the petitioners are paying the
service charges for supply of water, electricity and sanitation with
effect from the date of allotment, to the GIDC.
The
respondent No.1, i.e. the Chief Officer of Amreli Nagarpalika, issued
notices dated 14.4.2008 to the petitioners for the recovery of
property tax. It is against these notices that the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition.
The
submission made by Mr.V.K.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
is that although the Nagarpalika is authorised to recover the
property tax, but it can only do so after following the procedure
envisaged in Sections 105, 107 and 108 of the Gujarat Municipalities
Act, 1963. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the impugned notices have been issued without
following the necessary procedure, as enumerated in the
abovementioned Sections.
Without
going into the merits of the case, in my view, the interest of
justice would be met if the respondent No.3 is directed to look into
the matter and decide the representation of the petitioners within a
time bound period. Accordingly, if the petitioners make a
representation to the respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks
from today, the respondent No.3 may look into the said representation
and decide the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to one
authorised representative of the petitioners, if found necessary. The
representation may be decided within a period of three weeks from the
receipt thereof. Till the decision on the representation, no coercive
action be taken against the petitioners.
The
petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Direct
Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)