Hwble High Court · 2005

PropriVor Firm S&etoulal Pannalal, resld'ent of H^iwai Llne Rajnandgaon. 2- sarad Chitlangya, son of Kishanchand Chitlangya aged about 45 years, resident of Basantpur, Rajnandgaon M. P. v er su s- RSSP fDEMTS 1- Tbe S-tate of M. P. through Secretary Local Self Governaient Ballabb Bhavan Bhopal &»P. 2- Bajnandgaon &lunicipal Corporation A a-tutory Corporate Body under is&cjhya firadesh Muaicipal Corporation Act 1956, through Municipal Coinmissio- nex- , Rajaandgaon (M.P.). 3- Officer Tncharge, Revenue Municlpal Corporation , Rajnandgaon (M.P.). IffilT _PETITION_UMDffl ARTICLE_22 6/227 OF THE COMSTOTUTION 1- 3- 6F DWIA DETAIJ-S OF WRIT ffiTITla^I Particulars of tbe petitioners ; As given in the cause title above. Particulars of the respondents As glven in the cause title above. s •Particulars'of the order against the petition is being made : from whlch contd. ••• ••'2.1 n' IB!( ^^^^^^'^^^^^ls^^s^^^s^-^ -^^ ~~^rwr:i^~\ < 'S'!ie\ '""-^'^ !<7 !.r-^;- r-^'^Cff""*'^ ., tt ims&yss svst 'v^s . &eax ^ "siCtKi •acus.'s. aseT if' ^cET -t4|<4|««,t>Tl1<1<IS, firtlf'iy'; ^Wf»^SW .teNo<.^^ff..... W^200 3II^?I ICT? ('jZlfgeRS) sa^sTBTJS-fiti; ^snan^STaRfiP S^1T8R^lfS?T3II$»T 'i>l-'<fri4)'1 «11*)dT^"fcLd'ilult'ci'i ^3]1^H3tI^?T \. ^ &B: Hon'ble Shri A.K.Patnaik, f.J. ,<& Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar- Sinha, J.

23.6.2005 Heard Mr. B.P. Gupta| couiisel for the petitioners and Mr. Saajay S. Agrawal, Govt. adv< ticate for fhe State. The petitioners ai'e re^idents 6f Rajuandgaon aud fhey own different properties ia Rajnac (dgaon town. In fhis writ petition, ti^ jev have challenged Section 138 of fhe M. P. Municipal Corporation ^cf, 1956 as ultra vires being contraiy to the provisions of Articlei 14 of fhe Constitution. They have furfher prayed to declare fh^ M.P. Nagar Palika (Detenuination of Aunual Lettuie Value of fhe puildiags/lands) Rules 1997 as ulta-a vires to fhe Municipal Corpo| j-ation Act, 1956. The petitioners have also prayed for ;a declaration declaruig the resolution dated

30.12.1997 off he Municipal pouncil ui question as illegal and void being contran7 to law. In case of Sakhi Gopa^ Agrawal & others -v- State of KI.P. & others aad otlier conaect^d cases, reported ia 2003 (III MPJR. 406 , fhe fult bench of fhe I^.P. High Court has already held fhat Section 138 of fhe Muiiicipal [Corporation Act, 1956 is uot a defiaiit SP/FS/2005-20,000 /S.P/FS/2P05-20,000 ^ ^y ^' p ^•cei -t)Wt<?i>q,W^>W13, (6lrti'<iy ^,^ M^^:^... ^200 aii^^cRif^gN?/ ;isiisn^»iS*it; ER ^RTISR'BfelSII^fl <H;rfc^:[WR5t'^ftc^;?^R3R ^arf^Tiiii^n x of Article 14 of the Constituttion of India aud does not suffer fhe frown of fhe equalily clau^e or aay kiad of arbitrariness or in-at Lonality. By the said ju<|.gment, fhe fu.U bench of M.P. High Court has also held fhat i| properh' owner is affected by fhe resolution passed by the M^uiicipal Corporation or MunicipaUly, he can assail fb.e sam.e ia its entirety before the appropriate authority as provided und^r both fhe statutes. In fhe said judginent, it W . held that f(ie Municipal Coiporation as weU as Municipaiity caruiot fix fhe |ren.t on categdiy basis takiag m.to consideration fhe classifica^ions niade uader fhe Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 aad fh^ Rules of 1997 ruade ttiereunder. Accordiagly, fhis writ p^tition is disposed of in. temis of tlie said judginent passed in ^cdchi Gapal Agrawal aad oth.er conrtected case-s-xs.ypra). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- CbiefJustice ^6 ^SP/FS/2005-20,000 ~\