Ward Sudhar Samiti. Gwalior vs Municipal Corporation, Gwalior

K.K. Varma, J.

This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution professing to be in the aid of public interest seeks the following reliefs

(i) Officials of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, be punished for their wilful persistent recoveries of Rs. 110/- as registration fees and ancillary charges in respect of every ''application'' made to it u/s 167 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter "the Corporation Act") even after a Division Bench of this Court at Indore Bench had quashed such recoveries in Avas Samasya Niwaran Sanstha v. Municipal Corporation, Indore 1986 (I) MPWN 206, decided on 2-4-1986.

(ii) The Respondent be prohibited from making the aforementioned recovery.

(iii) The Respondent be directed to dispose of ''applications'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act in 30 days after receiving them.

We permitted Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Shiv Om Agrawal, Rajendra Gupta and Ku. Sangita Agrawal to intervene in the present proceedings dated 8-3-91, which contains their grievances in respect of their ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act. To keep the record straight, their application has been cited in the main petition itself.

Section 167 of the Corporation Act which finds place in Chapter XI on the subject of Taxation runs as follows:

Notice of transfer of title, when to be given-

(1) Whenever the title in any land or building or in any part or share of any land or building is transferred, the transferor and the transferee shall, within three months of the registration of the deed of transfer, or if it be not registered, within three months of the execution of the instrument of transfer, or, if no such instrument be executed, after the transfer is effected, given notice in writing of such transfer to the Commissioner.

(2) Every person liable for the payment of a tax or any property, who transfers his title to or over such property without giving notice of such transfers to the Corporation as aforesaid, shall in addition to any other liability which he incurs through such neglect, continue to be liable for the payment of all such taxes payable in respect of the said property until he gives such notice or until the transfer is recorded in the books of the Corporation.

(3) In the event of the death of the person in whom title to any land or building or any part or share of any land or building vests, the person who as an heir or otherwise takes the title of the deceased by descent or devise, shall, within three months from the death of the deceased, given notice of his title to the Commissioner in writing.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the heir or device for the said taxes or to effect the proper claim of the Corporation for the recovery of the taxes due thereupon.

(5) (i) When any new building is erected, or when any building in re-built or enlarged or when any building which has been vacant is re-occupied, the person primarily liable for the the property taxes assessed on the building shall, within fifteen days, give notice thereof in writing to the Commissioner.

(ii) The said period of fifteen days shall be counted from the date of the completion or of the occupation, whichever first occurs, of the building which has been newly erected or re-built, or of the enlargement, as the case may be, add in the case of a building which has been vacant, from the date of the re-occupation thereof,

It is not in dispute that the Department of Local Self Government of the State Government of M. P., Bhopal, had sent out a Memorandum No. 2039/80/2/81, dated 26-3-1991, to the Commissioners of Municipal Councils, Chief Municipal Officers of Municipal Councils and all the Notified Area Committees in the State. The relevant portion of the letter ran as follows:

The aforementioned Memo dated 26-3-81 was quashed by the Indore Bench of this Court by its judgment Avas Samasya Niwaran Sanstha (vide para 1 supra). In that judgment after setting out the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 of the Corporation Act, the Court observed as follows:

The aforesaid provisions of Section 167 of the Act, do not empower the Corporation to levy any charges for recording a transfer in the books of the Corporation. The learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to the provisions of Section 366 of the Act, That Provision deals with the licences and permissions granted under the Act. No provision under the Act or under any other law was brought to our notice which lays down that transfer of immovable property shall not be effective without the permission of the Corporation in that behalf or that it shall not be recognised by the Corporation unless permission in that behalf is granted by the Corporation. In the absence of such provision the imposition of fees or charges for recording the transfer in the books of the Corporation cannot be justified.

The Department of Local Self Government State of M. P. admittedly issued an order dated 28-9-88 (Annexure R/2) purporting to vacate the aforementioned memo dated 26.3-1981.

Coming to the Petitioner''s grievances, his first grievance is that notwithstanding the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the Officers of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, have been "recovering" Rs. 110/- from each maker of an "application" u/s 167 of the Corporation Act.

The second grievance is that thousands of such "applications" seeking prayers for "mutation" have remained pending for years. At para 6 of the the petition, the Petitioner has enumerated about a dozen of such cases.

It is claimed that such "applications" u/s 167 of the Corporation Act should be disposed of in thirty days on the analogy of the time-limit of thirty days of the disposal of "applications" u/s 295(3) of the Corporation Act.

The non-Petitioner (the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior) has denied that after this Court''s judgment dated 2-4-86, it (Corporation) has recovered any registration charges or fees for itself from the makers of of "applications" u/s 167 of the Corporation Act. The Respondent''s stand is that in the period before 10 years the Respondent used to issue notices in the profroma (vide Annexure P/1) in respect of "applications" u/s 167 of the Corporation Act with direction for their publication by affixure on the land or building forming the subject-matter of the "applications" u/s 167 of the Corporation Act. The proforma of such notices ran as follows:

The Corporation submitted that experience showed that the publication of notices by affixture did not being the contents thereof to the persons holding or claiming any interest in the property forming the subject-matter of the ''applications'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act or to the prospective objectors. Hence, the practice of publishing such notices in newspapers was adopted 10 years ago. The applicants are being advised to get the notices published in newspapers and to pay the publication charges However, the applicants prefer to get the notices published in newspapers through the Corporation and to that and they deposit the publication charges with the Municipal Corporation.

The Respondent denies the accusation that its employees designedly or unnecessarily keep the ''mutation-proceedings'' pending.

The Respondent submits that the furnishing of wrong information by the ''applicants'', non-adduction of evidence by the parties in cases where objections have been filed, and non-payment of arrears of the property tax have contributed to the delay in the disposal of the proceedings.

We have heard the Petitioner himself and the learned Counsel for the interveners and the Corporation. At the hearing, some records of the ''mutation'' proceedings were brought by the Corporation''s learned Counsel. The records of case Nos. 2426/88 � 3/11, 2437/88 � 3/11 and 2034/89 � 3/11 have been kept in Court for perusal.

The first point for determination is whether the Corporation has been ''recovering'' Rs. 110/- on account of registration fees and ancillary charges in respect of every ''application'' made u/s 167 of the Corporation Act and sent to or filed before it.

Now, the return does not specify the date, month and year when it had allegedly adopted the ''practice'' of publishing in newspapers notices for inviting objections, if any, to the ''mutation-applications'' received by it u/s 167 of the Corporation Act. On top of it, the Respondent has not even averred that after 2-4-1986 (the date of this Court''s judgment in the Avas Samasya Niwaran Sanstha''s case: 1986 (I) MPWN (206) ) and 8-9-1990 (the date of the institution of the present petition under Article 226), it framed any bye-laws or rules in accordance with law or passed any resolution in accordance with law to the effect that it would go on with the aforementioned ''practice'' and would receive Rs. 110/- in respect of each ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act to meet the expenditure in getting the notices published in a local newspaper and to arrange for the preparation and transmission of the notices to the newspapers for publication and for making payments to them to the newspapers out of funds paid in by the applicants. It is, therefore, clear that in fact no such bye-laws or rules or resolutions came into existence daring the aforementioned period.

The Petitioner has filed photostat copies of five printed money-receipts (Annexure-B) issued by the employees of the Respondent-Corporation, containing the following particulars:

Money Receipt Number

Money Receipt Book Number

Date of issue

Payer''s name

Amount & Credit Entry No., if any

Head of the receipt

Case no.

7548

239/89

10-1-1989

VirendraBahadur Singh

Rs. 110/115/-10-1-89

NamankanShulk''

109/89 x 3/11

57426

241/89

13-12-1989

AshokRs. Kumar Shrivastava

120/-

''PrakashanVyayaKiChhatipoortiShulk''

3120/89 x 3/11

Money Receipt Number

Money Receipt Book Number

Date of issue

Payer''s name

Amount &Credit Entry No., if any

Head of the Receipt

Case no.

55302

243/89

19-12-1989

BalmukundSinghal

Rs. 110/-

''PrakashanVyayakiChhati-poortiShulk''

3152/89 x 3/11

97448

265/89

19-1-1990

Dinesh Kumar & ors.

Rs. 110/- 150/-19-1-90

''PrakashanVyayakiChhatipoortiShulk''

151/90 x 3/11

59102

319/89

20-3-1990

OmPrakash

Rs. 110/-

''PrakashanVyayakiChhatipoortiShulk''

641/90 x 3/11

The Petitioner''s case is that the Respondent''s employees issued the receipts after accepting the moneys in question from the ''applicants'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act. This case was not controverted by the Respondent. Hence, the entries in the aforementioned receipts, read in the context of, the Government''s Memo dated 26-3-81 and the circumstances set out at para 16 (supra) establish that the Respondent has done on recovering Rs. 110/- purportedly as the Namankan Shulk or the scrutiny or publication charges after the Government''s Memo dated 26-3-81 had been strurk down by this Court''s judgment in the Avas Samasya Niwaran Sanstha''s case: 1986 (I) MPWN 206 decided on 2-4-1986, and ultimately recalled by the State Government on 28-9-1988.

Now, to the Respondent''s case that it has been charging from each maker of a ''mutation application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act only such moneys as become payable to the newspaper publishing such objection-notices (in a bunch) in respect of such ''applications''.

However, in each case, the sum recovered is Rs. 110/-. The Respondent has not pleaded the basis on which this fixed amount was arrived at or determined or was being accepted from each ''applicant''. Ex-facie, the sum of Rs. 110/-, which is being recovered from each maker of the ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act, is made up the grand-total of the sums mentioned under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Government''s Memo dated 26-3-1981.

What is more, the newspaper cuttings, in Case No. 2034/89 X 3/11, and Case No. 2437/88 X 3/11, each newspaper cutting shows that in each case a consolidated notice had been inserted for publication in the newspaper in respect of the 21 mutation-cases on the lines indicated at Clause Nos. 4 and 5 of the aforementioned Government''s Memo dated 26-3-81.

Then, the Respondent has produced no documentary proof as to the quantum of the publication charges paid in respect of each of the aforementioned consolidated notices.

Everything (stated in the foregoing 7 paragraphs) leads to the inference that, in fact, the Respondent has been charging a sum of Rs. 110/- from each maker of an ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act as fees and charges as it had being doing under the struck-down Government Memo dated 26-3-1981.

Alternatively, the Respondent has sought to justify the charging of Rs. 110/- from each maker of an ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act as a means to reimbursing itself in respect of the necessary expenses in the processing of a ''mutation application'' from the beginning to the end. The Respondent''s learned Counsel has dilated op the plea in the following fashion.

An ''application'' u/s 167 of the Corporation Act ''for mutation'' of names in respect of a land or a building within the local limits of the Corporation is made by the transfer Or and the transferee or by an heir or a devise. The grant of the application will entail an amendment in the entries in the requisite Assessment List and the Register required to be maintained by the Corporation (under Section 151(1) of the Act). The Respondent is required to inquire into the averments in the application. In addition, it has to issue a notice inviting objections, if any, to the proposed amendment.

While earlier, so runs the plea, the notice to prospective objectors was being issued in the proforma R/1 (vide para 10) (supra.). However, it was noticed, so runs the plea, that the publication of such a notice in a local news paper, was the only way to ensure a wider publicity to the notice to bring it to the ken of the persons holding or claiming any interest in the property in question or to the prospective objectors. Respondent asks each maker of an ''application'' u/s 167 of the Act to get such a notice published in a newspaper and to pay for it as a step-in-aid of the mutation proceeding.

It is submitted that the applicant, in order to save himself the bother of getting the notice published in a newspaper leaves it to the Respondent to take the requisite steps to get the notice published in newspaper on the funds made available by the applicant himself.

The Respondent''s stand is that if the applicant is exempted from funding the publication expenses, the Respondent will have to meet the publication charges out of its funds but that would mean an uncalled-for expenditure to the Respondent in, and for the purposes of, a mutation proceeding.

In order to appreciate the aforementioned contentions, the material provisions regarding ''Taxation'' and the allied matters in Chapter XI of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, have to be brought into focus.

Section 132(I) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, casts an obligation upon the Corporation to impose the property tax, a latrine or conservancy tax, a general sanitary cess and a water rate. We are, however, concerned here with the imposition of the property tax.

Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Corporation Act runs as follows:

132 Taxes to be imposed under this Act.

(1) For the purpose of this Act, the Corporation shall impose -

(a) a tax payable by the owners of buildings or lands situated within the city with reference to the gross annual letting value of the building or land called the property tax.

Section 135 of the Corporation Act, as substituted by M. P. Ac No. 50 of 1976" sets out a Table specifying the rates at which property tax was to be charged, levied and paid for each financial year with effect from the financial year 1976-77.

Section 138 of the Corporation Act lays down the basis of ascertaining the annual value of the lands and the buildings in question.

Sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act says that the property tax shall be paid primarily by the owner of the property. Sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Act says that the property tax charged and levied on the owner may be recovered from any occupier of the property under the Act, or the rules and bye-laws made thereunder.

Section 143 of the Corporation Act, substituted by M.P. Act No. 50 of 1976, says in its Sub-section (1) that the annual value of any land or building situate within the city (having a Municipal Corporation) as determined under the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 or rules made thereunder and in force for the purpose of that Act immediately before the 1st day of April, 1976, shall be deemed to be the annual value for the assessment of property tax on such land or building under the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. This annual value was to remain in force until such time as the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation made a fresh valuation and determined the annual value under the Corporation Act of the lands and buildings in question. The annual value so determined by the Commissioner was to remain unchanged for a period of one year, but liable to be revised by the Commissioner thereafter at the termination of successive period of one year.

Sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Corporation Act says that the Commissioner may, instead of making a new assessment every year, adopt the existing assessment, with such alteration as he thinks fit, as the assessment for each new year, giving to persons affected by such alterations the same notice of the altered valuation and assessment as would have been required if a new assessment had been prepared.

To grasp the relevancy and the significance of the aforementioned statutory requirement of the giving of notices to the persons affected by the alterations referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 143, we must look into the provisions of Sections 145, 147 and 148 of the Corporation Act.

Section 145 of the Corporation Act runs as follows:

Public notice and inspection of valuation.

(1) When the valuation u/s 143 of the lands and buildings in any ward has been completed, the Commissioner shall cause the respective valuations to be entered in a list and give public notice of the place where such list may be inspected.

Time for filing complaints against valuation ;-

(2) The Commissioner shall at the same time and in the same manner, give public notice of a date, not being less than thirty days from the publication of such notice by which objections to the amount of any annual value or other particulars ente-red in the assessment list may be delivered at his office.

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 147 runs as follows

Notice of objection to valuation-

(1) Any person dissatisfied with a valuation made under this Chapter may deliver at the municipal office a written notice stating the grounds of his objection to such valuation.

(2) Such notice shall be delivered on or before the date fixed in this behalf in the public notice referred to in Sections 145 or 146.

Section 148 runs as follows:

Investigation of objections by Commissioner- (1) All such objections shall be entered in a register to be maintained for the purpose and, on receipt or any objection the Commissioner shall give a notice in writing to the objector of the time and place at which his objection will be investigated.

(2) At the time and place so fixed the Commissioner shall hear objection in the presence of the objector or his authorised agent if he appears, or may, for reasonable cause, adjourn the investigation.

(3) When the objection has been determined, the order passed on such abjection shall be recorded in the said register and, if necessary, an amendment made in the assessment list in accordance with the result of the objection.

At this stage, a backward look, after a fashion, into the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 167 is indicated.

The heading of Section 167 is "Notice of transfer of title, when to be given". Sub-section (1) of Section 167 requires the transferor and the transferee of any land or building or any part or share thereof to give notice in writing of such transfer to the Commissioner within three months of the transfer of the property in question.

Sub-section (3) of Section 167 of the Corporation Act says that upon the death of a person having a title to any land or building or any part or share thereof, any person claiming to be an heir of the deceased or otherwise claiming title of the deceased by descent or devise, shall give notice of his title to the Commissioner in writing.

it is plain that the requirement of giving the notices in question is for keeping the assessment list up to date maintained by the Corporation under the provisions of Section 151 of the Corporation Act which run as follows:

Keeping of municipal assessment list-

(1) The annual value fixed under this Chapter shall be entered in one or more registers to be kept ward-wise or in any other mariner for the purpose wherein shall be recorded-

(a) the serial number of each set of premises;

(b) the description of each set of premises;

(c) the name and place of abode of the owner and the name of the occupier:

(d) the amount of the valuation;

(e) the amount payable on account of the said tax;

(f) any exemption granted from payament of the said tax; and

(g) such other particulars as the Commissioner may direct.

(2) The particulars mentioned in Sub-section (1) may be contained in as many registeressas the Commissioner may determine which shall together constitute the assessment list.

(3) When the name of the owner or occupier of any premises is not known it shall be sufficient to designate him in the said assessment list as ''the owner" or "the occupier", as the case may be.

It is plain that the notices under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 167 cast an obligation on the Commissioner to inquire into the facts contained therein with a view to seeing whether or not any amendment is called for in particular, in the particulars set out in item (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 151.

That this juncture of the proceedings, the provisions of Section 153, which relate to the "power of Commissioner to amend assessment" come into play. Section 153 of the Corporation Act runs as follows:

Power of Commissioner to amend assessment-

(1) The Commissioner may at any time amend the assessment list by the inclusion, omission or substitution of any matters:

Provided that whenever he proposes to make any amendment in respect of any matter other than the correction of an arithmetical total, he shall before making the amendment send notice thereof to persons interested and shall allow thirty days to elapse for the making of any objection to the proposed amendment.

Provided further that nothing in this Sub-section shall empower the Commissioner to vary the valuation of any premises determined on appeal to the District Court.

(2) If any amendment be made in respect of any matter other than the correction of arithmetical total, any person on whom a notice is served may object by written application addressed to the Commissioner and delivered at the Corporation Office before the date fixed in the said notice; and the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 shall with all necessary modifications apply to such objection.

(3) When the erection of a new building is completed after the completion of the assessment list, the Commissioner may add the particulars of the building to the list, and in each the provisions of Sections 145, 147, 148, 149 and 152 shall apply, except that on public notice shall be required. In such a case the assessment shall take effect from the beginning of the quarter following the date on which the building is added to the assessment list or from the date when it is occupied or let, if that is earlier.

The focus-in the sequel-will be trained on the notices required to be given (to the Commissioner) only under Sub-sections (I) and (3) of Section 167, and to the proceedings before the Commissioner as required by the relevant provisions in Chapter XI of the Corporation Act.

The Commissioner receives the statutory notices ''mutation-applications'' in common parlance-under Sub-sections (1) and (3). Then, the Commissioner is required to enter upon the consideration of these statutory notices because he is required to decide whether or not to exercise his statutory powers u/s 153 to amend the relevant entry in the assessment list (got prepared and at henticated by him in the manner laid down in Chapter XI of the Corporation Act) in the light of the information given to him in the said notices.

The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 153 and the proviso to the said Sub-section (i), read with the petitions of Section 148 contain the following pointers to the Commissioner as to how he is to initiate the proceedings and to proceed further for disposing of the matter in accordance with law, for the purpose. Then the Commissioner shall give u/s 148(1) a notice in writting to the objector of the time and place at which his objections will be considered.

Firstly, he has to scrutinize the notices in question during which process he may make or cause to be made a summary inquiry to decide whether a prima-facie case is made out for making the requisite amendment in the entry already entered in the assessment list in the compliance of the statutory requirement spelled out in item No. (o) and in consequence thereof in any other item of Sub-section (1) of Section 151 (see paragraph 44, supra).

Secondly, if he is satisfied that a prima-facie case for the amendment has been made out, he shall send notice thereof (under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153) to persons interested and stay his hands for thirty days for the making of the proposed amendment.

Thirdly, if the persons interested do not send to him any objections in writing within thirty days for opposing the proposed amendment, he shall order appropriate amendment in the relevant entry in the assessment list, in accordance with the facts found by him on the scrutiny of the information contained in the notices under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Sections 167.

Fourthly, if the Commissioner receives a written objection from the person(s), who had received his notice (issued in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153), within thirty days, shall cause the objections to be entered in a register to be maintained (u/S 148 (1)).

Fifthly, at the time and place so fixed the Commissioner shall hear the objection in the presence of the objector or his authorised agent, if he appears. (See Sub-section (2) of Section 148).

Sixthly, when the objection has been determined, the order passed on such objection shall be recorded in the register (referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 148, and if necessary, an amendment in the assessment list in accordance with the result of the objection. (See subjection (3) of Section 148 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 153).

It is, therefore, clear that in the proceedings required to be initiated and completed by the Commissioner on his receiving the statutory notices under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 167, he is required (by the provisions contained in the proviso Sub-section (1) of Section 153) to issue a notice of the proposed amendment to ''persons interested'', that is to the identified or identifiable persons. It is only when he receives an application containing written objections from ''persons interested'' that he is, required (under Sub-section (1) of Section 148) to give a notice to the objector-person who has been identified as well as who has identified himself of the time and place at which his objections will be considered.

The giving of emphasis above has been done to high-light the fact that the aforementioned provisions regarding the giving of a notice to ''persons interested'' and the ''objector'' require the giving of the requisite notices to determinate persons. Such notices are clearly distinguishable from public notices, which mean notices to public concerned. (See Rahimtulla Ishak v. Jhametmal Chainrai 3 I. C. 445 at page 448.

The subject of the giving of notices required to be given by the Corporation Act, 1956, or any rule or bye-laws made thereunder, requires an examination of the provisions contained in Sections 369, 370 and 371 (in Chapter XXXIV, bearing the heading ''General provisions for the carrying on of Municipal Administration Procedure'') on the subject of effecting the service of such notices.

Section 369 deals with the subject of effecting service of notice etc. on an owner or occupier of any land or building while Section 370 deals with the same subject on any person otherwise than an owner or occupier. On the other hand, Section 371 deals with the subject of making known of the contents of public notices whenever it is provided by or under the Act that public notice shall or may be given of anything.

Section 369 runs as follows:

Service of notice, etc., how to be effected on owner or occupier of premises.

Then any notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document is required by this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder to be served upon or issued or presented to any person a owner or occupier of any land or building, in so far as it concerns that land or building, the service, or issue or presentation thereof shall be effected either-

(a) by giving or tendering to any person whose name has been entered in the assessment list of the owners, or one of the property concerned or to the occupier thereof; or

(b) if the owner of occupier or no one of the owners or occupiers is found, by giving of tendering the said notice, bill schedule, summons of other document to some adult member or servant of the family of the owners or occupiers, or of any of the owners or occupiers'', or

(c) by causing the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the land building to which the document relates; or

(d) by delivering at some post office, the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document under cover addressed by the description of the owner or occupier of......(here describing the property concerned) without further name or description of the person concerned, and obtaining a certificate of posting the same from the post office; or

(e) by any one or more of these methods.

Section 370 runs as follows:

Service of notices etc., how to be affected on any person otherwise than an owner or occupier of premises.

When any notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document is required by this Act or by any rule or bye-law made thereunder, to be served upon or issued, or presented to any person, otherwise than as owner or occupier of any land or building, such service, issue or presentation shall be effected-

(a) by delivering at some post office the said notice, bill, schedule, summons, or other such documents under cover hearing the address of the person concerned and obtaining thereof a certificate of posting, or

(b) by giving or tendering to such person the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other such document, or

(c) by both methods.

It is crystal clear from the provisions of Section 369 that the methods of service of notice were enacted on the footing that the records of the Corporation were to furnish the names and the address of a determinate owner of any land or building, and also the address or location of the land or building in respect of which the notice in question was being issued on being so required by the Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder. That is the reason why any of the four methods of service could be passed into service.

Similarly, the two methods of service of the statutory notices, (provided for in Section 370) clearly go to show that the records, maintained by or currently available with, the Corporation were to furnish the name or identifiable description of a determinate person, other than an owner or occupier of any land or building, and also his address.

It then follows that not only the notice issued under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153 to persons interested (in the proposed amendment in the assessment list but also the notice issued u/s 148(1) to the objector (to the proposed amendment) are meant to be served by the four methods set out in Section 369, if the persons in question happen to be the owner or occupiers of the land or building touching which the notice had been issued; or by the two methods set out in Section 370, if they happen to be persons other than the owners or occupiers of the land or building.

In other words, the notices issued under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153 and Sub-section (1) of Section 148 are not required to be made known to the persons, in question by any method prescribed for the publication of a public notice that one meant for (an indeterminate) public at large.

However, the Respondent has been admittedly issuing a consolidated notice (in the form of and intended to be a public notice) for publication in newspapers. To give concerete examples, the newspaper cuttings in mutation cases Nos. 20 34/89 � 3/11 and 2347/88 � 3/11 show that the notices sent out by the Respondent for the publications in question run as follows:

(Emphasis supplied.)

The aforementioned text is followed by the following Table containing six columns, with their respective headings. Out of 21 entries given below the respective headings in the newspaper cutting in mutation Case No. 2034/89 � 3/11, the first entry is being shown in the following extract.

The aforementioned emphasised portions in the text of the notice (extracted at para 61 supra.) clearly indicate that it was published for making its contents known to an indeterminate class of the public for inviting objections, if any, to ''the mutation applications'' made by the person(s) named and described as per the heading in column 4 of the Table. Now, as demonstrated at paragraphs 57 to 60 (supra), a notice in the format of the notice published in the newspaper in question was not meant to be given under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153, or for that matter, under Sub-section (1), of Section 148, which say nothing about the giving of public notices for the purpose of those provisions of law.

At this juncture, a look into the provisions of Section 371 is worth-while. It runs as follows:

Public notices how to be made known. Whenever it is provided by or under this Act that public notice shall or may be given or anything, such public notice shall, in the absence of special provision to the contrary, be in writing under the signature of the Commissioner or of a municipal officer empowered under Sub-section (4) of Section 69 to give the same, and shall be widely made known in the locality to be effected thereby, by affixing copy thereof in conspicuous public places within the said locality, or by publishing the same by beat of drum or by advertisement in the local newspapers, or by any two or more of these means and by an other means that the Commissioner shall think fit.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Now, neither the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153, nor the Sub-section (1) of Section 148, says that the notice required to be given therein shall or may be in the form of a public notice. As such, the provisions of Section 371 do not come into play during the proceedings - ''mutation proceedings'' -arising out of the statutory notices given to the Commissioner under Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 167. The inescapable conclusion is that no public notice is required by law to be given in the aforementioned proceedings.

Now, the form/format adopted by the Respondent in the notice got published by it in the newspaper (vide, paragraph 61, supra) does not fulfil the intent of the proviso to Sub-section (1) because the notice does not say that the Commissioner proposed to make such and such amendment, and it is not directed at ''persons interested''. Similarly, the notice, published in the newspaper, not having been expressed to be for informing any determinate person who may have been already lodged a written objection to any proposed amendment, could not be said to one for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 148.

Now, the provisions of Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 167 do not require the notices issued thereunder to be registered with the Corporation on the payment of any registration fees.

In fact, it is the Commissioner who has the statutory duty to issue and cause the service mode of the notices under the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153 and also under Sub-section (1) of Section 148. These provisions of law also do not say that the expenditure incurred in the issuance and service of the notices was to be paid or reimbursed by the senders of notices-or makers of mutation applications-under Section 167. It then follows that if the Commissioner proposes to cause the service of any notice under Sections 153(1) and 148(1), or, for that matter, any notice on his own, by getting them published in a newspaper during and for the purposes of a mutation proceeding u/s 167 (1) and (3), the Corporation will have to bear the requisite expenditure, which cannot be passed on in law to the senders of the notices under Sub-sections (1) (3) and (5) of Section 167.

The next point at paragraph 6 of the petition is about a huge back-log of thousands of ''mutation proceedings'', many of which have been hanging fire for years together.

The Respondent has not controverted the aforementioned averments. In fact, the Respondent issued Office Order No. 2460/90: 3/11/Rnjaswa/90, Gwalior, dated the 29th November, 193) (Annex. R-3). It begins with a preamble:

It contains a series of instructions to its clerical and field staff fixing time-limits for the performance of their respective duties. Instructions were given to the Registration Clerk to prepare a list to show enter therein the opening balance of the pending mutation cases, the total receipts of such cases in a particular month, the number of cases disposed of in that month and the closing balance of the cases at the end of the month and to send the list to the Rajaswa Vibhag within 7 days, and directed to furnish a month-by-month statement on the aforesaid lines by the 5th day of the subsequent months.

The aforementioned order is an acknowledgement of the huge backlog and undue prolongation of the duration of mutation proceedings, and also of the fact that the higher echelons of the Corporation were not unaware of the remissness of their clerical staff and field staff.

It is, therefore, established that thousands of ''mutation proceedings'' u/s 167 have been pending for years together.

The Petitioner''s submission is that this Court declare that a mutation proceeding shall be disposed of premptorily in 30 days and that, in default, the mutation applications shall be deemed to have been granted on the analogy of the provisions of (Sub-Section 3 of Section 295, (occurring in Chapter XIV ''Building Control'').

The submission had to be stated only to be rejected out of hand because to accede to the Petitioner''s request would be to legislate.

However, suitable directions shall be issued to the Respondent to take steps, in advertence to this Court''s exposition of the law contained in Sections 167, 153 and 148, 369, 370 and 371 of the Act, for expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings u/s 167 and also of such proceedings that may be initiated in the future.

However, on considering all the circumstances of the case and the relevant law in the Act, no case is made out for punishing any officers or officials of the Respondent for the recoveries made by them from the makers of the ''mutation applications'' u/s 167 of the Act.

Similarly, no specific instances have been given by the Petitioner about the accusation of acceptance of illegal gratification by any officer or official of the Respondent. The allegations have been controverted by the Respondent. The averments in the petition in this regard cannot be accepted.

In the result, this Court orders that the following directions shall issue to the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

(1) The Respondent, its officers and officials shall not demand or accept any sum of money whatsoever from therenders of notices u/s 167 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956,as registration fees, scrutiny charges process fees or any charges whatsoever required to be issued under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153 and under Sub-section (1) of Section 148 of the aforementioned Act.

(2) The Respondent, its officers and officials are specifically restrained from demanding and recovering or even accepting any sum of money, whatsoever, in the name of any expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred by the Respondent for paying publication charges in respect of any notice directed or meant to be directed to be published in a newspaper in connection with the ''mutation proceedings'' initiated u/s 167.

(3) The Respondent and its Commissioner shall exercise their powers and performs their obligations in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, in advertence to the exposition of law made by this Court at paragraphs 37, 42 to 60, 62, 63, 65 and 66 (supra).

(4) The Commissioner shall take all requisite steps for reducing the existing backlog of the proceedings initiated u/s 167 of the Act. He shall be accountable for reducing the duration of the pendency of the existing proceedings and also such proceedings as may be initiated u/s 167 in the future.

The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the costs of the present proceeding; the costs are quantified at Rs. 300/-

A copy of this judgment be sent to the Director of the Urban, Administration (Local Self-Government), M. P. Bhopal. He is hereby directed to place the judgment within 3 weeks of its receipt before the Minister in the charge of the said Department.