In a recent ruling of Bombay High Court it was clarified that receipts for property tax assessment do not necessarily indicate ownership rights to the property.
The petitioner Ashwini Arvind Shirgave of Kolhapu who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The respondent No 3, Ramchandra, lodged a complaint with gram panchayat with a contention that the Plot No.14 allotted to Ramchandra with execution of panchnama. The respondent had been paying taxes, despite that the petitioner’s husband’s name, Arvind Shirgave was inserted for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09.
Effortless Faceless Appeals – File with GPT Precision – Click here to Register
Also the assessment property No.1798- D appeared to have been prepared in the name of f Arvind Kuber Shirgave, for which written explanations with respect to how two different assessments was prepared for one person.
The notice was issued by the Collector and the parties were called for hearing. A survey map was prepared for the same.
The Petitioner contended that the complaint filed by Respondent No.3 has not stated about the boundaries of Plot No 14 and there is no clarity as to from which side the encroachment is alleged to be carried out.
Effortless Faceless Appeals – File with GPT Precision – Click here to Register
It was also mentioned that in the application by Respondent No.3 is not government land but additional gavthan land and that the information about wrong assessment by gram panchayat came to the knowledge of the Petitioner’s husband in the month of November 2020 and immediately thereafter an application was moved for deleting the name of the Petitioner’s husband from the assessment.
But due to covid-19 pandemic, the application remained pending and on 30th June 2022 the assessment was canceled, and the name of petitioner’s husband was deleted and the husband’s name was not mentioned in encroachment list of year 2000-2020.
The allegation of the respondent was of encroachment by petitioner’s husband upon the plot allotted to him. The government land which had been allotted to the Respondent No 3, the character of the land changes being in hands of private person and encroachment, if any, must be removed by adopting appropriate civil remedy.
Effortless Faceless Appeals – File with GPT Precision – Click here to Register
It was pointed out that tax receipts was issued in the name of petitioner and her husband, which cant be done as the assessment extract is only in the name of petitioner’s husband. Therefore it was proved that the submitted tax receipts were forged ones, and was fabricated for showing the petitioner’s husband’s occupation of property.
The collector held that petitioner’s family’s name was noted since the year 1998 when the petitioner’s husband was a minor. Petitioner’s father-in-law was earlier the encroacher and thereafter the encroachment continued.
The authorities had failed to recognise the fabricated document inserting the petitioner’s husband’s name. The Divisional Commissioner had factually erred in holding that the Petitioner had accepted that Plot No.1805-D is in her possession which had been throughout disputed by Petitioner stating that they have no connection with 1805-D.
Effortless Faceless Appeals – File with GPT Precision – Click here to Register
The single bench of Justice Sharmila U.Deshmukh observed that there was no encroachment by the petitioner or petitioner’s husband and there existed no record of continued occupation of the property and it was also decided that property tax Assessment Receipts Does not Necessarily Imply right to property.
The respondent’s impugned order was quashed allowing the petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
