Bombay High Court
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF THE CITY OF PUNEversusM/S. PRAVINKUMAR KANTILAL AGARWAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the impugned judgment, set aside the appeal and held that the burden of proof lies with the assessee, limiting the relief to the year 1991‑92.
Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Pune challenged a lower court order that had set the rateable value (RV) of a godown at Rs 2,600, contrary to the corporation’s assessment of Rs 17,550. The respondent, a lessee of the plot, had not produced any valuation evidence before the assessing officer. The High Court held that the burden of proving the correct RV lies on the assessee and that the lower courts erred by shifting that burden to the corporation and by granting parity with a neighbouring property without reasons. It observed that proximity alone does not justify identical assessments and that the earlier courts had not examined material factors. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned judgment and set aside the appeal, but limited the relief to the assessment year 1991‑92. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the burden of proving the correct rateable value rests on the assessee or the municipal corporation.
- Whether the lower courts erred in granting parity of assessment with a neighbouring property without providing reasons.
- Whether the assessment order based on a construction cost of Rs 150 per sq. ft. for 1990‑91 is valid.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 406, 411
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- rateable value
- municipal assessment
- burden of proof
- discrimination
- Article 226
- municipal corporation
- property tax
- assessment order
- parity
- construction cost
Judgment
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2026.09.30
20:10:43
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 1999
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY )
OF PUNE )
Having its Head Office at Shivajinagar, )
Pune 411 005. ) ...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s. Pravinkumar Kantilal Agarwal, )
a Proprietary firm having its )
office at 242, Market Yard, Pune, )
Nanuram Agarwal, 37, through its )
proprietor Mr. Kantilal Nanuram Agarwal, )
age 38 yrs., Occupation : Business, )
Residing at 31, Bhavani Peth, Pune-411002.) ... Respondent.
***
Mr. Rhishikesh M. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Madhavi Tavnandi, Advocate for the Respondent.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 28th JULY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner/Municipal Corporation is challenging the Judgment and
Order dated 03.08.1998 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge,
Pune in Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1994. By the said impugned Order,
the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Municipal Corporation is dismissed,
confirming the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.1994 passed by
Husen 1
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 61 of
1992. Order of Assessing authority dated 24.03.1992 passed in Case
No. A-95/91-92 was set aside, thereby fixing the Rateable value (‘RV’
for short) of subject matter structure at Rs. 2600/- instead of Rs.
17,550/- w.e.f. 01.04.1991 and the Municipal Corporation was
directed to correct the assessment books and return the excess taxes,
if any.
2. Brief background of the matter is as under :
2.1. The Respondent is the lessee of Plot No. 242, Market Yard,
Gultekdi, Pune (‘the said plot’ for short), which admeasures 3000 sq.
ft. in Market Yard area, which was allotted to him by Agricultural
Produce Market Committee (‘APMC’ for short) in the year 1990 on
lease for 99 years.
2.2. As per the permission and plan sanctioned by the
Petitioner/Municipal Corporation, the Respondent carried out RCC
construction of typical godown admeasuring 1300 sq. ft. and an attic
of 200 sq. ft. In 1991, the Completion certificate was issued with
regards to construction on said plot.
2.3. The Petitioner/Municipal Corporation sent Special Notice No.
1867 dated 23.12.1991 proposing to enhance RV of the subject
matter structure from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 17,550/- w.e.f. 01.12.1991.
Respondent was heard. The Assistant Assessor and Collector of Taxes,
by order dated 24.03.1992 fixed RV at Rs. 17,550/- w.e.f. 01.12.1991
after considering cost of construction of Rs. 150/- per sq. ft.
Husen 2
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
2.4. The Respondent challenged the said assessment order by filing
Municipal Appeal No. 61 of 1992 under Section 406 of Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (‘BPMC Act’ for short),
in the Small Causes Court, Pune.
2.5. Learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, who heard and tried
the said appeal, was pleased to allow it, thereby setting aside the
assessment and instead fixing RV at Rs.2,600/- w.e.f. 01.04.1991. The
Petitioner/Municipal Corporation was directed to correct the
assessment books upto date and was further directed to refund excess
tax collected, if any.
2.6. The Petitioner/Municipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.
401 of 1994 in the District Court at Pune under Section 411 of BPMC
Act.
2.7. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.08.1998, the
said appeal is dismissed. In these circumstances, the
Petitioner/Municipal Corporation filed this writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the burden of
proving that assessment is excess, is upon the assessee i.e. the
Respondent. He submitted that the said burden is not discharged as
there is nothing to indicate that any evidence was led before the
Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Courts below were not
justified in placing the burden about assessment upon the
Petitioner/Municipal Corporation, contrary to the established law. He
Husen 3
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
further submitted that the method of comparing similar nearby
structure, is not permitted in absence of reasons. He submitted that
the Courts below have perversely held that there has been
discrimination. He relied upon the following judgments in support of
his case :
i. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. M/s. E. L. F.
Filament Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court, Writ
Petition No. 6151 of 1999, Judgment dated 28.02.2025).
ii. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune and Ors. Vs.
M/s. M. M. Nahar (Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 2301
of 2009, Judgment dated 17.02.2023).
iii. Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Dhanraj Tarachand Sankala
and Sons 2013(2) Mah.L.J. 407.
iv. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. Satishkumar
Satyanaran Agarwal 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4798.
v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vimal Govind
Joshi (Bombay High Court, Civil Revision Application No. 25 of
2009, Order dated 29.04.2015).
vi. Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. The Indian Seamless Metal
Tube Limited (Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 5920 of
2006, dated 12.02.2026).
He finally submitted that, in fact judgment of M. M. Nahar
(Supra) and Satishkumar (Supra) are rendered in respect of the same
Market Yard area at Gultekdi where present subject matter structure
and plot is situated.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Respondent/assessee, submitted that the Courts below have
concurrently held that assessment should have been similar to nearby
structure. She submitted that the subject matter godown of the
Respondent is situated in the rear side lane of a neighbouring
godown, owner of which is examined as Witness No. 2 and therefore
Husen 4
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
there is no reason to discriminate. She finally submitted that the
method of construction-cost adopted by the Assessing Officer should
not have been adopted and at the relevant time, in 1990-91,
construction cost was not as high as Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. as
considered by the Assessing officer. She relied upon following
Judgments in support of her case :
i. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. AIR
1964 SC 1179.
ii. Municipal Corporation of City of Pune Vs. Haridas Govinddas
Gujrati 2002(4) Bom.C.R. 260.
iii. Mananbhai N. Sheth Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad
2001 SCC Online Guj 152.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that judgments in M. M.
Nahar (Supra) and Satishkumar (Supra) are indeed in respect of the
same same market yard area in Pune involving same Pune Municipal
Corporation.
7. Perusal of the assessment order dated 24.03.1992 indicates
that assessee was present and heard. Nothing is shown to the Court
to suggest that Respondent/assessee has given either valuer’s report
for construction cost or other material before the Assessing Authority
in support of his case for reduction in proposed assessment.
8. Assessment order is based on an order in Case No. A/038/90-
91, which proceeds on construction cost at the relevant time. The
assessment order records that completion certificate was granted in
Husen 5
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
July 1990 and therefore, cost of construction for the year 1990-91
was considered @ Rs.150/- per sq. ft. (Rs. 2,35,000/- for godown
admeasuring 1500 sq. ft.) and based on such figure, RV value is fixed
at Rs. 17,750/-.
9. In Vimal Govind Joshi (supra), this Court has clearly held that
it is for the party which disputes the RV (Respondent/assessee in the
present case) to lead evidence and prove as to what should be the
correct RV and the burden is upon the Respondent/assessee. This
view has been subsequently followed by this Court in judgment of
The Indian Seamless Metal Tube Limited (supra), The Municipal
Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. M/s. Hi-Q Electronics (Bombay
High Court, Writ Petition No. 2422 of 2004, Judgment dated
09.07.2026). In the present case, nothing is pointed out to the Court
from record that such burden was discharged when the matter was
heard before the Assessing Officer.
10. In Dhanraj Tarachand Sankala (Supra), this Court held that
merely because two properties are situated adjacent to each other,
their assessment need not be the same. In M. M. Nahar (Supra) and
M/s. Hi-Q Electronics (Supra), this view has been followed.
11. Keeping in mind the law as discussed above, it is clear that
merely because of geographical proximity or because two structures
are situated adjacent to each other, their assessments cannot be held
comparable directly, unless the material in that respect is discussed
by the Court and reasons are given. In the case at hand, it is seen that
such comparison about quality of structure, amenities or other factors
is not discussed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court and
Husen 6
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
the learned District Judge. Parity seems to have been given without
reasons or discussing basis for the same. Merely because of
geographical proximity or being adjacent, rates applied to Witness
No. 2’s property are applied to present case by the Courts below. Also,
the learned District Judge has erred in putting burden of proof upon
the Petitioner in as much as, it is held that Municipal Corporation has
not adduced any evidence to show as to on what basis the cost of
construction is determined.
12. Before parting, it is necessary to consider judgments relied
upon by the Respondent. The judgment of Bhopal Sugar Industries
Ltd. (Supra) is relied upon to contend that the Respondent must be
treated equally with the other similarly situated persons. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said Judgment has clearly held that to make
out the case of denial of equal protection, a plea of differential
treatment by itself is not sufficient, but applicant pleading denial of
equal protection must make out that he has been treated differently
without reasonable basis and such differential treatment is
unjustifiable. Considering the settled position in respect of provisions
of law involved, as explained above, parity is required to be based on
reasons about two structures being similarly situated. Therefore, in
the peculiar facts of this case, this is not a case of differential
treatment without reasonable basis. In that view of the matter, this
Judgment will not advance the case of the Respondent.
13. In Haridas Govinddas Gujrati (Supra) it is seen that in the facts
of that case, there was discrimination in fixed rate at higher than
adjacent nearby bungalows in which better material or construction
Husen 7
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
was used. Therefore, while considering the parity, the learned District
Judge had considered reasons for giving such parity. In the present
case, parity has been given without any reason about relevant factors.
Therefore, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
Hence, the said Judgment will also not advance the case of the
Respondent.
14. Lastly, the facts involved in Mananbhai N. Sheth (Supra) are
completely different and the issue discussed and decided by learned
Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the said case is not at all
relevant for the issue involved in the present matter and therefore,
the said Judgment will also not help the Respondent.
15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts below have
placed the burden perversely upon the Petitioner and has given parity
without reasons. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from
perversity and cannot be sustained. Interference is needed. However,
considering that long period of about 35 years has lapsed in between,
interference will have to be limited to its effect on concerned year i.e.
1991-92.
16. Hence, the petition succeeds partly. Impugned Judgment and
Order dated 03.08.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1994 is
quashed and set aside. The said appeal is allowed, thereby setting
aside the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.1994 passed in Municipal
Appeal No. 61 of 1992. However, this order shall apply for the year
1991-92 only.
17. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Husen 8
WP-2095-1999 (J) C2.doc
18. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Husen 9
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.