AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Advocate for the Applicant in Misc. Application No.180 of 2015, seeks stay to the directions issued by this Tribunal, pending hearing of Review Application No.15 of 2015- filed by him against the Original Judgment passed in Application No.51 of 2014.
On examination of record, the Application is found to be incorrect, un-maintainable and improper. Mandatory amount directed to be paid shall be deposited by the Applicant without any hindrance. The Application is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
We have considered the Review Application in the Chamber along with original record of Application No.51 of 2014 and the Judgment passed therein. Therafter in view of directions of the Apex Court nd other circumstances, the Application was heard in open Court, allowing full opportunity to learned Advocates to make their submissions.
The Apex Court allowed the Applicant to file additional documents. Applicant - Anil Hoble filed photo copy of receipt for payment of house tax dated 27. 3.1998. Learned Advocate on his behalf would submit that payment of house tax for the year 1978-79, shows lawful possession of Anil Hoble during long period and, therefore, it was illegal and improper to reach to the conclusion that his possession was unauthorized. So also, photo copy of Challan dated 21 st August, 1975, was placed on record in order to show that Anil Hoble had paid the amount of Rs.99.06ps. in the name of his father towards sale-tax for period of 1.5.1975 to 30.9.1975. The challan is produced regarding payment of sale-tax dues. In addition, he has also produced on record photo copies of certain tax payments, which are sale-tax payment paid. He filed a copy of communication dated 7.3.1975 regarding sale-tax.
Before we may consider merits of the Application, let it be noted that so far as production of the photo-copies of receipts of tax receipts are concerned, it is not the case of Anil Hoble that they were unavailable before filing of the earlier proceedings (Original Application No.51 of 2014). It is significant to note that the photo copies of these receipts appear to have been obtained after subsequent payment of the tax dues. The photocopy of receipt dated 23.2.1977, in our opinion, is more significant, because the receipt precedes the amendment to CRZ Notification that came into force in 2011. The photo-copy of the receipt No.18, reveals that the amount is only for arrears of house-tax and light tax for the year 1977-78, was recovered by the Secretary of Village Panchayat. In case of traditional fishermen, whose houses are on beaches, ordinarily, electricity supply is not provided and as such electricity tax is not required to be collected. Other photocopies of the receipts produced by Anil Hoble for the year 1978-79, are discrepant with the photocopy in Form No.4, which appear to be more reliable. The photocopy at page-63, for the year 1988-89, reveals that amount of house-tax recovered was of Rs.26/-, whereas, light tax was of Rs.2/-. In other words, these documents are internally discrepant, not corroborative to each other and cannot be relied upon.
The case of Anil Hoble further is that other documents about copies of Challans produced by him should be accepted, inasmuch as such copies were found by him during course of search carried out by him after death of his father in a box. He has not produced death certificate of his father to show date of death of his father. Nor stated as to when said documents were found by him. The new documents can be allowed only when they are newly located after due search, which an Applicant could not have found previously in spite of diligence and due search. Assuming that his father paid certain amount by way of sale-tax, it does not show that tax was recovered by the licensing Authority, which could have permitted running of 'Tavern' or country liquor den, nearby a beach for evening enjoyment of the fishermen.
The Applicant has placed on record copies of some Judgments viz: (1) U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. & Ors (R.A. No.22 of 2015 in O.A. No.177 of 2013 dated 15.9.2015) and (2) Mrs LIbertina Fernandez vs GGZMA & Ors. (R.A. No.02 of 2015 in Appeal No.106 of 2013, MA No.93 of 2015 dated 26.2.2015) decided by NGT (PB) New Delhi.
In our opinion, scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, gives due guidance which categorically says that "review petition cannot be treated on pedestrian of Appeal." The Applicant's case is neither reviewable, nor holds any merits even if all other documents produced by him, are considered.
In the result, the Application filed by the Applicant is dismissed. No costs.