Geographical proximity alone cannot justify parity in municipal rateable-value assessments.

The respondent, lessee of a plot in Pune’s Market Yard, constructed a godown and attic after obtaining municipal permission. The Municipal Corporation assessed the structure’s rateable value (RV) at ₹17,550, based on construction cost of ₹150 per sq. ft.

On the respondent’s appeal under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (BPMC Act), the Small Causes Court reduced the RV to ₹2,600 from 1 April 1991, relying on comparison with a nearby structure; the District Court dismissed the Corporation’s appeal under Section 411.

The Corporation challenged the concurrent orders under Article 226.

1. Whether the courts below erred in placing the burden of establishing the correct RV on the Corporation, when the respondent disputed the assessment.

2. Whether proximity to a neighbouring structure, without reasoned consideration of relevant comparability factors, justified fixing the respondent’s RV on a parity basis.

3. Whether the impugned orders should be set aside, and, if so, whether the relief should be limited to the assessment year 1991–92.

Under Sections 406 and 411 of the BPMC Act, municipal assessment disputes may be pursued through the statutory appeal process.

The court relied on Vimal Govind Joshi and Indian Seamless Metal Tube Limited for the principle that an assessee disputing the RV bears the burden of leading evidence to establish the correct valuation.

Under Dhanraj Tarachand Sankala, M. M. Nahar and Hi-Q Electronics, adjacent location alone does not establish that two properties should receive the same assessment; parity requires consideration of relevant material and reasons.

A claim of unequal treatment, as explained in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., requires more than differential treatment: the difference must lack a reasonable basis and be unjustifiable.

The assessment order recorded that the respondent had been heard, but the record did not show that the respondent had produced a valuer’s report or other material supporting a lower construction cost or RV.

The lower courts nevertheless placed the evidentiary burden on the Corporation and adopted the neighbouring property’s assessment without examining the structures’ quality, amenities or other relevant factors.

The court therefore found both the allocation of the burden and the unsupported parity finding legally erroneous.

The respondent’s cited authorities did not alter that conclusion: Haridas Govinddas Gujrati involved reasoned consideration of relevant comparability factors, unlike this case.

In view of the time elapsed, the order was confined to the assessment year 1991–92; the rule was made absolute in those terms, with no order as to costs.