Ghaziabad: The Allahabad High Court in an order delivered on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by three former councillors challenging the substantial hike in property tax by the Ghaziabad municipal corporation (GMC).
Hearing the case since May 2025, the court finally dismissed it while saying that the exercise taken up by the respondents was “found to be fully in consonance with the statutory provisions requiring no interference by this court”.
The court observed different averments raised by the petitioners and also the submissions made by the respondents, including the corporation, besides relying on several previous judgments by the Supreme Court.
“… we neither find any error in the determination of minimum monthly rent rates ‘MMRR’ based upon the categorization/classification of the properties nor any illegality in the impugned decision of the respondents to revise/enhance the property taxes based upon ‘MMRR.’ The petition has no substance, and the same is, therefore, dismissed,” the court stated.
The rates of MMRR are defined to calculate the property tax components.
The petitioners had challenged that hike in property tax as per MMRR increased the tax levy by about 3-5 times. They further challenged the MMRR, arguing that the determination of the applicable MMRR per square foot of carpet area has not been made according to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules, and no exercise has been undertaken by the respondents in consonance with the laid down provisions.
The counsels representing respondents—corporation and its officers – submitted that the controversy involved in the petition is only about MMRR and not about the rate of property tax.
“Elaborating his submissions, it is contended that as per section 148 of the Act (UP Municipal Corporation Act), the power to determine rates of taxes lies with the corporation; taxes are to be imposed as per sections 172 and 173 of the Act; and the determination of ‘annual value’ is the sole prerogative of the municipal commissioner,” the order stated.
The order states that submissions were made that in the year 2020, every locality in each of 100 wards was categorised into three categories—(A) developed areas, (B) normally developed areas and (C) backward/slum areas based on the circle rates defined by the district magistrate.
It also took notice of a public notice issued by the corporation on January 9, 2024. The notice states different rental values for properties in classified categories A, B, and C located on road widths more than 24 metres, on road widths 12-24 metres, road widths less than 12 metres, among others.
Manish Goyal, the additional advocate general (AAG), made the submission that as per section 174(1)(b) of the Act, read with Rule 4-A, the municipal commissioner is the competent authority to determine ‘MMRR’ and based thereupon, property taxes are levied.
“In the present case also, municipal commissioner had sought an opinion from the state government, which was furnished. Specific reference has been made to communication dated March 6, 2025, whereby the state government had required the commissioner to proceed at his own level as per section 174 and Rules 4-A and 4-B. In sum and substance, the contention is that the determination made by the municipal commissioner in furtherance of the guidelines and directions issued and request made by the state government, is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act requiring no interference by this court,” the court order stated citing the AAG.
Former councillor Rajendra Tyagi, one of the petitioners, said, “The mayor should have supported the public in not increasing the tax, but she did not make efforts to date to make public the minutes of the board meeting of June 30, 2025, in which the hike was unanimously rejected by the corporation board. The powers of the corporation board have been undermined. We are studying the order and will take due legal action in the future.”
On the other hand, mayor Sunita Dayal told HT that the petitioners must reply to the public after the high court order.
“The court has made it decision, and those who were protesting against the hike should now respond to public. I will make further comments at appropriate time,” Dayal told HT.
