CIVIL APPEAL 5304 of 2025 on 26 March 1969

1. Smt. Suchitra Devi alias Smt. Suchitra Saha Wife of Raj Kumar Choudharyalias Late Raj Kumar Prasad alias Late Raj Kumar Kasera, Resident of RajKumar Market, Ashok Raj Path,Chowk, Patna City, P.S.- Chowk, District-Patna.alias Late Raj Kumar Prasad alias Late Raj Kumar Kasera, Resident of RajKumar Market, Ashok Raj Path,Chowk, Patna City, P.S.- Chowk, District-Patna.

2. Amit Kumar Kasera, Son of Raj Kumar Choudhary alias Late Raj KumarPrasad alias late Raj Kumar Kasera, Assistant Teacher in Anant Lal SanskritHigh School Ramasadh, Sandesh, District- Bhojpur.Prasad alias late Raj Kumar Kasera, Assistant Teacher in Anant Lal SanskritHigh School Ramasadh, Sandesh, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Patna Nagar Nigam through its Mayor, Maurya Lok Complex, BuddhaMarg, Patna.Marg, Patna.

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Nagar Nigam, Maurya Lok Complex,Buddha Marg, Patna.Buddha Marg, Patna.

3. The Executive Officer, Patna City Circle, Patna Nagar Nigam, Gulzarbagh,Patna City, District- Patna.Patna City, District- Patna.

4. Banti, Son of Late Lal Babu alias Mahesh Prasad, Resident of MohallaKamangar Gali, P.S.- Khajekala, Patna City District- Patna.Kamangar Gali, P.S.- Khajekala, Patna City District- Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Adv.For the Respondent/s: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv.: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHAORAL ORDER

19-08-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. According to the petitioners, the father in law of petitioner no.1 Late Jugeshwar Prasad had purchased a landappertaining to Plot no.767 Circle no. 178 Holding no. 104(old), ward no. 26 (old) situated at Ashok Rajpath Chowk PatnaCity vide two registered sale deeds dated 26.03.1969 and31.05.1969 from one Laxmi Niwas Ram and came in physicalpossession over it.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatafter the death of Late Jugeshwar Prasad in 1978, the name ofpetitioners being mother and son was mutated in the records ofthe Patna Municipal Corporation vide order dated 15.04.1997passed by the Assistant Administrator Patna City, Anchal, Patnain Mutation Case No. 191/95-96. After the mutation, thepetitioners have been paying the municipal tax regularly. Theland and building is presently situated in Ward No. 66 at AshokRajpath having Holding No. 115/119 - Property No. 2066167and the petitioners are residing in the said house and are inexclusive possession of the same.

4. Petitioners, in the year 2020, came to know thatname of another person was recorded on the holding of thepetitioners, namely, Shri Lal Babu Prasad alias Mahesh Prasad,son of Babu Nandan Prasad Chaudhary, vide order dated15.02.2013 having MC No. 740/12-13. From the year 2020, themunicipal authorities insisted to issue joint rent receipt in thename of petitioners as well as in the name of joint holder ShriLal Babu Prasad.

5. The petitioners have filed an appeal before theMunicipal Commissioner, Patna, having Appeal No. 02 of 2020-21 but the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Respondent/Authorities have issued Attachment Order againstthe petitioners for payment of sum of Rs. 89,211/- out of whichthe petitioners have paid a substantial amount and as of todayRs. 24,052/- is to be paid by the petitioners. Learned counselsubmits that petitioners are ready to pay the aforesaid amount ofRs. 24,052/- and the future municipal tax without prejudice totheir right and contention that the name of joint holder Shri LalBabu Prasad alias Mahesh Prasad has wrongly been added in theholding exclusively possessed by the petitioners.

6. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned senior counselappearing for the P.M.C., assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar,submits that Competent Authority may be directed to disposethe appeal filed by the petitioners and the petitioners may bedirected to deposit the balance amount towards the holding taxwithout prejudice to their right and contention which shall besubject to the final outcome of the appeal.

7. Having considered the rival submission of theparties and taking into account the nature of dispute involved inthe present case, I feel it expedient to direct the Respondent No.2/Municipal Commissioner, Patna, to decide the appeal of thepetitioners as early as possible, preferably within a period offour months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this HarshPandey/- U

order. The petitioners are also directed to deposit the balanceamount towards holding tax within a period of one monthwithout prejudice to their right and contention and shallcontinue to pay holding tax as and when demanded by theMunicipal Corporation.

8. If the petitioners deposit the up-to-date amount of holding tax, no coercive steps shall be taken against theproperty.

9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)