Bombay High Court
THE COMMMISSIONER , AHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusARUN MUKUNDAS DUGAD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court held that there was no patent illegality or perversity in the appellate court’s findings and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The Commissioner of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the appellate court’s finding that a Lok‑Adalat settlement amount related to a disputed property tax bill. The petitioner argued that the settlement covered only the period 1995‑2005 and was unrelated to the current assessment, alleging a patent error by the appellate court. The High Court examined the record and noted that the lower courts had duly considered the evidence and applied the rateable value method for tax assessment. It reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re‑appreciation of evidence absent a patent illegality, procedural impropriety, or perversity. Finding no such error, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court erred in holding that the Lok‑Adalat settlement pertained to the disputed property tax bill.
- Whether there exists a patent illegality, procedural impropriety, or perversity justifying interference under Article 227.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- property tax
- Lok‑Adalat settlement
- supervisory jurisdiction
- Article 227
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- appellate court
- patent illegality
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41588
1 59-WP-10233-14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10233 OF 2014
THE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VERSUS
ARUN MUKUNDAS DUGAD AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kishor N. Lokhande
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 02-09-2026
PER COURT:-
1. The petitioner-Corporation has approached this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 26.07.2013 rendered by the District
Judge-5, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2010.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
appellate court erred in concluding that the amount settled in the
Lok-Adalat pertained to the disputed property tax bill. He argued
that the appellate court ignored a crucial fact: the Lok-Adalat
settlement was exclusively for a distinct period from 1995 to 2005,
whereas the dispute involves a independent assessment.
Consequently, the petitioner contends that the appellate court
misdirected itself and committed a patent error in allowing the
respondent’s appeal.
2 59-WP-10233-14.odt
3. On the contrary, perusal of the record indicates that the
courts below have scrutinized the facts. The petitioner-Corporation
has assessed the property applying the rateable value method as
per the prevailing rules and regulations. The trial court and the
appellate court have evaluated the evidence regarding the Lok-
Adalat settlement and concurrently arrived at their findings of fact.
4. It is a well-settled legal position that the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
This Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate
evidence unless the findings of the subordinate courts suffer from
a patent illegality, procedural impropriety, or a demonstrable
perversity.
5. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to demonstrate perversity, material irregularity, or
jurisdictional error in the well-reasoned judgment of the appellate
court. The concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below
do not warrant any interference by this Court under its
extraordinary jurisdiction.
6. In the absence of any demonstrable error, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
rrd
Checking your session…