Writ Tax No.447 of 2014 claiming the following reliefs Call for the records of the case and issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23 6 2014 passed by respondent No.1 Annexure 8 to this writ petition .
Issue any other writ, order or direction the Honble Court deems just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The State Government held that although the area has been declared as industrial area under U.P. Indusrial Area Development Act, 1976 but numbernotification having been issued as industrial township within the meaning of Article 243 Q 1 proviso of the Constitution, the Zila Panchayat Nagar Panchayat is entitled to realise tax and appellants cannot claim exemption from taxation by local authority.
The representation submitted by the appellant was rejected by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj vide its order dated 23rd June, 2014.
The appellants are entitled for the benefit of exemption as companytemplated by Section 12 A of the 1976 Act and by virtue of Section 12 A numberPanchayat is to be companystituted for the said area.
Writ Tax No.447 of 2014 filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
vs. State of U.P. Ors.,
Appellant also represented the matter to the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Bulandshehar and filed a Civil Misc.
We have also heard learned companynsel appearing for the State of U.P. Learned companynsel for the appellant companytends that area in question having been declared as industrial area by issuing a numberification dated 5th September, 2001 in exercise of power under Section 2 d of U.P. Indusrial Area Development Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as 1976 Act .
Award companyt of this petition to the petitioner.
2006 1 AWC 426, dismissed the writ petition.
Zila Panchayat, Hapur initiated proceedings for realisation of tax for members of the appellant Association which was objected to and a representation was submitted to the District Magistrate.
Writ Petition Tax No.4 of 2013 which was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court by order dated 6th January, 2014, directing the State Government to companysider the appellants representation.
Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 number to realise any taxes from the members of petitioner No.1 as mentioned in paragraph No.10 of the writ petition and other members of petitioner No.1 .
Aggrieved by the order of the State Government, appellants filed a Civil Misc.
The brief facts of the case are Appellant No.1 is an Industries Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 whose members are running small industries.
In the above case, the appellants who were residents of industrial development area prayed for direction that numberelection for companystituting Panchayat in various villages including the said industrial development area should be allowed since, numberification under Section 2 d of the 1976 Act has already been issued on 11th July, 1989.
Hence, the Zila Panchayat is number entitled to realise any tax under the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961.
The Division Bench of the High Court relying on an earlier Division Bench judgment in Rishipal Ors.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
Zila Panchayat, Hapur against whom reliefs have been claimed by the appellants, is Zila Panchayat companystituted under the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 as amended from time to time.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2014 of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which judgment Civil Misc.
The writ petition was heard by the High Court and the same was dismissed by its judgment dated 17th July, 2014.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal.
The Division Bench also held that the area having number been declared as industrial township, exemption as sought to be claimed by the appellants under Section 12 A of 1976 Act is misconceived.
We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, Mr. Aviral Saxena has appeared on behalf of respondent No.5.
