{"id":8370,"date":"1966-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966"},"modified":"2016-04-08T11:33:08","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T06:03:08","slug":"miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","title":{"rendered":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 Bom 276, (1966) 68 BOMLR 519<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarkunde, Gokhale<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 1. These revision application raise a common question of law relating to the scope of an appeal under S. 86(1) of the Bombay  District Municipal Act. 1901. In all the revision applications the petitioner is the Miraj City Municipality and the respondent is the Secretary of a Mission which runs an institution called the Miraj Medical Centre at Miraj. The Medical Centre owns several buildings in Miraj, including a hospital, residential quarters for the staff. a primary school building and hostels for male and female students of the school. In or about 1952 the Miraj City Municipality assessed for the first time the buildings of the Medical Centre to its Consolidated Tax on Buildings and Lands. The Municipality is governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act . 1991. The Medical Centre submitted objections to the assessment on the ground that the buildings were exempted from the tax under Rule 15 of the rules framed by the Municipality under S. 46 of  the Act. and also on the ground that the quantum of the assessment was excessive. The objections having been overruled., the Medical Centre filed an appeal before the Judicial Magistrate of Miraj as provided in S. 86 (1) of the Act. While this appeal was pending, the Municipality clamed the amounts of the tax from the Medical Centre for some of the subsequent years, and these claims led to the successive appeals by the Medical Centre to the Judicial Magistrate. it was urged by the Municipality before the learned Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the contention of the Medical Centre that the buildings were exempted from the tax. The Municipality also claimed that the quantum of assessment on the buildings was correct. By a common judgment the learned Magistrate held firstly, that he had no jurisdiction to consider whether the buildings were exempted from the tax and, secondly that the quantum of assessment made by the Municipality required to be reduced to some extent. The appeals were thus partly allowed. The Medical Centre went in revision to the Sessions Court at Sangli from the orders of the learned Magistrate as provided in S. 86(2) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision applications., held that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to decide whether the buildings were exempted from the tax and remanded the cases to the learned Magistrate for deciding the claim for exemption after recording such evidence as may be led by the parties. The orders of the learned Sessions Judge have been challenged by the Municipality before us in these revision applications.\n<\/p>\n
  (2) Rule 15 of the rules framed by the Municipality under 46 of the Act provides inter alia that “buildings or portions thereof exclusively occupied for – charitable or educational purposes without any profit” shall be exempt from the levy of the Consolidated Tax on Buildings and Lands. There is an explanation appended to that rule which excludes certain buildings or portions thereof from the benefit of exemption.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) The scope of an appeal under S. 86(1) of the Bombay Municipal Act. 1901, was exhaustively considered in a judgment  of the Division Bench of this Court in Ankleshwar Municipality  v  Chhotalal, (1955)  57  Bom LR 547  In delivering the judgment of the Division Bench Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha pointed out that in the case of a tax on buildings or lands, one of the pre-conditions of an appeal laid down in S. 86(1) was that the appellant should have made an application in writing to the Municipality, within the time fixed in the notice given under S 65 or  66 “stating the ground on which the claim of the Municipality is disputed”. Section 65 provides that the Municipality shall give public notice at the time of the publication of the assessment list of the time when the Municipality  will proceed to revise the valuation and assessment, and that the Municipality shall also give an individual notice to the owner or occupier of the property where the property is being assessed for the first time or where the assessment is being  increased.  Sub-section (2) of S. 65 provides  that  all objections  to “The valuation and assessment” shall be made to  the Municipality  in writing, “stating the grounds  on which  the valuation  and assessment  are disputed “Sub-section (3) of S. 65 lays  down  the mode or  modes of hearing  those objections.  The preparation of  the  assessment  list itself  is provided  by S. 63, and amongst  the items  which  are  to be included in the assessment  list  are “appeal  letting  value or  other  valuation on  which  the property is  assessed” and  “the amount of  the tax assessed thereon.”  Reading  Ss. 63 and 65  together,  it is clear  that  the objections  which  the Municipality is  bound  to entertain in regard  to  the assessment  list  are objections  about   the  valuation on  the basis  of  which  the   property is  to be assessed  and  the amount of  the tax  assessed thereon.  Section 66 provides  for a  similar  notice  being   given  when  an entry   in  the assessment  list is  amended.  Now,  the decision of  the Division  Bench  referred to above  is  that in view  of  the pre-condition  mentioned in S. 86 that  the appellant  must have filed  an application  in writing  to  the Municipality   within   the  time fixed  in  the notice  given  under  S. 65 or 66 stating   the  grounds  on which  the claim of  the Municipality  is disputed,  the  grounds  on which  an appeal  can be entertained under S. 86 (1)   are confined to  the valuation and  assessment  in respect  of which objections  can be heard  and disposed  of under Ss. 65  and  66.  Mr.  Justice  Rajahyaksha  observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “It  seems  to  us  that  this  clause (i.e.  the  aforesaid  clause in section 86) makes  it clear  that  the appeal  can only be  with  respect  ‘to  the matters  with  regard  to which  an objection  could  be taken  in the inquiry  made  by  the Municipality  under S. 65 of  the Act, and  the scope  of  the appeal is confined  only  to  the grounds  stated  in the objections made to the Municipality under  that  section.”\n<\/p>\n
 A reference  was also  made in the judgment to S. 86A(1)  of   the Act which  runs  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “86A(1).  Every   entry   in the assessment  list made under  the provisions  of  this Act against which no objection is  made  as hereinbefore  provided,  and  the amount of every  sum claimed from any person  under this Act on account of  any tax, if no appeal  therefrom is made as hereinbefore  provided,  and subject   to  the provisions  of  sub-section (2) of S. 86, the decision of  the Magistrate or  Bench of  Magistrates  in any appeal  shall be  final.”\n<\/p>\n
 In  view of  the wording  of S. 86A the Division  Bench  held  that in addition  to his  right  to challenge   the correctness of  the valuation and  assessment entered in  the assessment list  an  appellant  can also contest  the amount of  the  tax claimed  from him, if  the amount  claimed is not justified  by  the entries  made in the assessment list.  The learned  Judge  observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “It is quite clear  to us  that  the correctness of  the valuation and  the assessment  and also  the quantum of  the  tax claimed are matters  which  could  properly  be adjudged in an appeal  before  Magistrate under S. 86 of  the Bombay District  Municipal  Act.”\n<\/p>\n
 The Court  observed, on the other hand,  that  questions with regard  to  the  validity of  the tax on lands  and buildings  are outside  the scope  of an appeal under S. 86.\n<\/p>\n
  (4)  In  the present  case the objection of  the Miraj  Medical  Centre  was that its  buildings  are exempted  from  the Consolidated tax on Buildings  and Lands  by  virtue of R. 15 of  the  rules  framed  by the Miraj City Municipality under S. 46 of  the Act.  It  seems  obvious  to us  that  the Miraj Medical  Centre was  entitled in response  to  the  notice received by it  under Section 65 of  the Act, to submit  to  the Municipality  an objection to  the effect  that  its  buildings   were exempted  from  the  tax under  the rules   framed  by  the Municipality.  Such  an objection relates  to assessment of  the buildings to  the Consolidated Tax,  and it  was  the duty of   the Municipality  under sub-section (3) of   S. 65 to  hear  the objection  and  dispose it of.  If  that is  so,   it must follow  from  the aforesaid decision,  in (1955) 57 Bom LR 547 that  the objection  came  within  the scope of  the appeal  provided in S. 86 (1) of  the Act.  It was  urged   by Mr.  Abhyankar   fort  the Miraj  City  Municipality  that  an objection claiming  an  exemption  from  the  Consolidated Tax amounted to  an objection  to  the validity  of  the tax itself.  In our  view,  there is little  merit  in this  contention. It  appears  to us  that  such  an objection relates  to  the assessment  of  the Tax. The meaning  of   the word “assessment” as used  in  the Bombay District Municipal  Act  was thus  explained  by Mr.  Justice  Rajadhyaksha  in  the above  judgment;\n<\/p>\n
   “In our opinion, the  word “assessment”  as used in the various sections  of  the Bombay  District  Municipal  Act  means  the  actual  sum  for  which  the tax-payer  is liable  and  for  which  the bill is presented under S. 82 of  the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
  (5)  Our  view  that   a  claim  to an exemption  from  the Consolidated Tax  on Buildings  and Lands  is within  the scope of  an appeal  under S. 86 of  the Act  finds  support  in another  decision of  a Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in Gopal Mills Co. Ltd. v.  Broach  Borough  Municipality,<\/a> (1956) 58 Bom LR 300.  Several  appeals   were disposed  of  by  the judgment  in  that  case and what is  relevant  for our   purpose  is  the decision  of   the  Court in Cross-Appeal  No.  136 of  1953.  The  appeals   arose  under   the Bombay  Municipal  Boroughs Act,  1925, and in appreciating  the  decision of  the division  Bench  a  reference  must be made   to S. 111(1) of  that Act, which   corresponds  to S. 86A(1) of   the Bombay  District  Municipal  Act,  1901.  S. 111(1) of  the Bombay  Municipal  Boroughs  Act confers  finality  on  every entry   in the assessment  list against  which  no objection is made. the amount  of  every  sum claimed  from any person on  account  of  any  tax   if not appeal  therefrom is made,  and  the decision  of  the Magistrate  or  Bench  Magistrates under Section 110 of  the Act.  These provisions in Section 111 were interpreted  by  the Division Bench  to   mean  that no suit  can be filed in a civil Court  to  agitate  the questions  to which finality  is  given  by  these provisions.  Now,  the   question  which arose in Cross-Appeal  No, 136 of 1953  was whether  the civil Court had  jurisdiction to  decide the claim  made  by  an assessee for  exemption  of  a certain land from the rate on  lands  or  buildings on  the ground  that the land  was used  for  agricultural  purposes.  The Division Bench  held  that  the  civil Court  had  no jurisdiction  to  decide  this question,  because   it  was  a question on which  an appeal  could   have been entertained  by  the Magistrate  under   S. 110 of  the  Bombay  Municipal  Boroughs Act  Chagla C. J. delivering  the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “The   learned  Judge  has held  that  three acres  and  18  gunthas  of  the land   belonging  to  the assessee was used for agricultural purposes  and therefore  was not liable  to  tax…….We   must hold  that  the learned  Judge had  no  jurisdiction   to go into  and decide the question of  three acres and  18  gunthas.  Whether  this  land  should be assessed on the  basis   of  agricultural  land  used  for agricultural  purposes   or  on a different  basis  was   a question of  valuation with  regard  to  which  the assessee could have objected to the standing  committee,  ultimately could have  appealed   to  the Magistrate,  and  finally  gone  in revision  to  the Appellate Court,  and it is not a matter  which  was competent  to  a civil Court to decide.”\n<\/p>\n
 This  therefore  is a  direct  authority   in support  of our  view  that in the cases before us  the Judicial  Magistrate   had  jurisdiction  to decide  the claim of  the Miraj Medical  Centre  to exemption  from  the Consolidated  Tax on  Buildings  and Lands.\n<\/p>\n
  (6)  Mr.  Abhyankar  for  the Miraj  City  Municipality  relied,  however,  on a later decision of   a Division Bench  in Balkrishna v. Poona  Municipal  Corporation,  (1963) 65 Bom LR 119   where  a different  view   appears  to have been accepted  by  the court.  That case was  decided  with reference  to the provisions of  the  Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act, 1949.  It  was held  in  that case hat  the civil Court  was competent  to  give  a declaration that  the property  belonging  to a trust  was  solely used  and occupied  for  a  public  charitable  purpose  and was therefore exempt  from  the payment  of  the general  tax  imposed  by  the Municipality.  Section 406 (1) of  the Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act  provides  that appeals  against “any  reteable   value  or  tax fixed  or  charged  under this Act”  shall  be heard  and  determined  by  the Judge.  Some of  the observations in the judgment  of  the Division Bench  in  this  case suggest  that,  according  to  the learned  Judges,  an objection  that  a  certain property  is exempted   from  the general  tax  amounted  to  an objection to  the legality  of  the tax  and  that  such  an objection could not   be entertained in an appeal filed  under S. 406 (1) of  the Act.  With  great  respect,  we do not  find  ourselves  in agreement  with  that  view,  That view,  moreover,  is at variance  with  the decision in (1956) 58 Bom  LR 300  referred to  above.  We find,  however,  that  the decision  of  the Division Bench  in  the later case, (1963) 65 Bom  LR 119  is  mainly  based on another  ground  which  has been stressed in the judgment  in that  case.  Section 413(1) of  the Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act  confers  finality on  certain  maters  and corresponds  with S. 86 (1) of  the Bombay District Municipal  Act and S. 111 (1) of  the Bombay Municipal  Boroughs  Act.  The terms  of  S. 413(1) of  the  Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act  are, however  materially  different  from  the  terms of  the corresponding  sections of  the  earlier Acts.  Under S., 413(1) finality  has been  conferred upon “every  reteable  value  fixed   under this  Act  against   which no complaint  is made  as hereinbefore  provided,” the  amount  of every  sum claimed  from  any person on  account of   any  tax  if no appeal therefrom  is  made,  and  the decision of “the Judge” upon  any appeal   filed  under S. 406 of  the Act against   any  such  value  or  tax.  It   will be noticed  that  whereas  the  two  corresponding   sections  of  the  earlier  Acts  confer  finality  on “every  entry in  the assessment  list ….. against  which no  objection  is  made,” finality  has been conferred   by S. 413 (1) on “every  reteable   value” against  which no complaint  is made.  Now, R. 9 in  Chapter VIII of Schedule A  of  the  Bombay  Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act  specifies  the entries  to  be made  in  the “assessment  book” for   the purpose  of  the  general  tax.  These   entries  include  the reteable   value  of    each  building  and land “if  any  such  building  or  land is  not liable  to  be assessed to a general  tax, the  reason  of such  non-liability”. the  assessment on each  building  or land   and certain  other details.  It   is  thus  clear  that although  R. 9 of Chapter VIII of Schedule   A provides  for  an  entry  to  be made  in  the assessment  book  with  regard  to  whether   any  building  or land  is  exempt   from  the general  tax, no finality   to such  an  entry  has  been conferred  by  the provisions  obtained  in S. 413 (1) of  the Act.  This  aspect   of the case was emphasised  in the judgment  of  the Division Bench in (1963) 65 Bom LR 119.  Mr.  Justice  Patel,  delivering  the  judgment   of  the  Division  Bench,  observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “This  view  is  further  strengthened  by  section  413  which gives  finality   to  the reteable  value  fixed under  the Act  and  the amount  or   the sum   claimed and nothing  else.  Exclusion of  the jurisdiction  of the Civil Court  is not  to  be lightly  inferred.  There is no  express provision  by which  the jurisdiction of  the  civil  Court is  excluded   in all  matters  that  the Commissioner  may  be able  to  decide.   Moreover,   finality   is  given  only  to  decisions  regarding   the reteable   value  and  the amount  of  tax and  not   to  any  other matter  that  the Commissioner   may incidentally  decide……… It  seems  to  us,   therefore,   that it  is  always  open  for  the civil  Court  to entertain  a suit  where  the question  is  one of  legality  of  the taxation  or  the liability  of  the assessee to  pay   the tax.”\n<\/p>\n
 Thus,   the  ratio  of  this  case is not  at variance  with  the view which  we are inclined  to take  with regard  to the scope  of  an  appeal  under S. 86 (1) of  the Bombay  District  Municipal  Act.\n<\/p>\n
  (7)  In  the result,  we are of  the view  that  the learned  Sessions  Judge  of Sangli  was right  in holding   that  the  Judicial  Magistrate  had  the jurisdiction  to  decide  the  question of exemption raised  by  the Miraj  Medical  Centre  and  in remanding  the case  to  the learned Magistrate  for disposal  in accordance with  law.  The rules   issued  in these  Civil Revision  Applications  are accordingly  discharged  with  costs.\n<\/p>\n
 (8) Petition  dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 Bom 276, (1966) 68 BOMLR 519 Bench: Tarkunde, Gokhale ORDER 1. These revision application raise a common question of law relating to the scope of an appeal under S. 86(1) of the Bombay District Municipal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMiraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2797,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\",\"name\":\"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966","datePublished":"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966"},"wordCount":2797,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966","name":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T06:03:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miraj-city-municipality-vs-american-board-of-foreign-mission-on-7-february-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Miraj City Municipality vs American Board Of Foreign Mission on 7 February, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}