Judgment Saryeshwar Roy, J. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 has filed this application in which prayer has been made for quashing Annexure-1 series (notice of demand) and Annexure-4, the notification dated 23.7.1977 part of which is purported to have been issued under section 4(c) of the Municipal Act, 1922 and part of which is purported to have been issued under section 6(c) of that Act. During the course of submissions, it was noticed that annexure-4 was a draft notification and final notification was published by notification No. 6804 dated 31.10.1977 as appears from paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. Instead of notification dated 23.7.1977 which is annexure 4, notification dated 31.10.1977 shall be taken notice of so far as this case is concerned. 2. A large area of land consisting of different plots in villages Argora and Kadru was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. By, an agreement between the State of Bihar and the Society, a copy of which is Annexure-2, the land so acquired was handed over to the Society for allotting to its members and for developing it for residential purposes. A large number of buildings have been constructed by the members in that area. 3. According to the petitioner, a notification dated 14.4.83 a copy of which is annexure-5 to the writ petition, was issued by order of the Governor, in which it was stated that by mistake villages Kadru and Argora were included within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, which was created by Notification No. So. 1046 dated 15.9.1979. Objections were caned for within six weeks from the date of notification as to why those two villages be not excluded from the limits of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the Governor admitted in Annexure-5 that by mistake villages Argora and Kadru were included within the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the latter had no jurisdiction to assess and demand tax under the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (PMC ACT) which is applicable to Ran chi Municipal Corporation. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the Chief Executive Officer, in which it has been stated, inter alia, that Ashok Nagar, the residential area of the Society as is commonly known, which is in villages Kadru and Argora was part of the Ranchi Municipality as would be evident from the notification No. 6804 dated 31.10.1977. When Ranchi Municipal Corporation was constituted under section 2 (i) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978, as the two villages were within Ranchi Municipality, it automatically became part of the Ran chi Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has the jurisdiction to assess tax on the holdings within Ashok Nagar Colony. It is their further case that the two villages have not been excluded from the limit of this Corporation. 5. At the outset, Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the Society, submitted that the members of the Society affected by the action of the Municipal Corporation should have filed this writ application. We are not expressing any opinion with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, and keep the matter open. 6. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the Governor was of the opinion, as evidenced by Annexure-5, that Argora and Kadru villages were wrongly included within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the Governor was not required to issue any further notification for excluding those villages from the limit of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, and those villages automatically stood excluded. 7. We have already noticed that in the counter-affidavit, respondents No.2 and 3 stated that villages Kadru and Argora became part of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in 1979 when it was constituted, as these villages were within the Ranchi Municipality from 31.10.1977. In other words, when the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was created, the area which was within the Ranchi Municipality was included in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. In other words, when the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was created, the area which was within the Ranchi Municipality was included in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute that the State Government has power to exclude an area which has been included in the Municipal Corporation, and for this a draft notification as contained in Annexure-5 was issued under section 2(3)(a) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978 proposing to exclude villages Kadru and Argora and calling for objection. Section 2 (3) (b) of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978 provides that on expiry of the said period of six weeks and after considering any objection or suggestion which may be received by the State Government within the said period, the State Government may make such amendments in the draft or alter the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation under sub-section (1) of this section as it may consider necessary. The State Government, if it decided to exclude the two villages, was required to publish further notification excluding villages Kadru and Argora from the limit of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Till such a notification is issued, in view of the fact that the two villages were part of the Ranchi Municipality and were included within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation when it was created, the two villages shall continue to remain within the limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Annexure-5 being a draft notification, any statement made therein must be held to be tentative On the basis of the facts brought on record it must be held that both the villages Kadru and Argora are within the limits of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It follows that Ranchi Municipal Corporation has jurisdiction to make demands under the PMC Act, 1951 which is applicable to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 8. It was submitted by Mr. Basudeo Prasad that the State Government be directed to issue the notification under section 2 (3) (b). It is for the State Government to decide whether it will take further action in the matter. 9. Annexure-1 series are the specimen copies of the notice of demand served on some of the members of the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner the assessment of the holdings were not made in accordance with section 130 of the PMC Act. 9. Annexure-1 series are the specimen copies of the notice of demand served on some of the members of the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner the assessment of the holdings were not made in accordance with section 130 of the PMC Act. It was also submitted that as the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is not supplying water, has not made lighting arrangement, has not provided conservancy services, has not constructed any drainage to the area covered within the jurisdiction of the Society, the Municipal Corporation could not have demanded tax under any of the heads mentioned in Annexure-1 series, i.e. bolding tax, latrine tax, water tax, health cess, etc. It was urged that the fair rent alleged to have been fixed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Ranchi, was without jurisdiction and that it was fixed without notice to the members of the Society. 10. So far the submission of Mr. Basudeo Prasad that the fair rent of the buildings as evidenced by Annexure-1 series was fixed without notice to the petitioner, there is no averment to this effect in the writ application and the supplementary affidavit. We are, therefore, not required to record any finding on this submission. 11. Section 133 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 provides for preparation of a valuation list. For the purpose of preparation of the valuation list, under section 134 the Chief Executive Officer may by a notice require any occupier or owner or both of a holding to furnish him with the returns of the rent or annual value thereof and descriptions of the holding containing such particulars as he may direct. The Chief Executive Officer may also authorise any person in writing to inspect and measure any such holding after giving 48 hours previous notice to the occupier thereof Section 135 provides for imposition of penalty for default in furnishing return or for filing false or incorrect return. Mr. N.K. Prasad has not brought to our notice any provision in the PMC Act which empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to fix fair rent for the purpose of fixing annual value of a holding. There is a statement in Annexure-1 series that by a notice published in the Ranchi Express dated 24.7.1988 the owners of the buildings in Ashok Nagar were directed to furnish details of their buildings. There is no provision for giving general notice through a newspaper. There is a statement in Annexure-1 series that by a notice published in the Ranchi Express dated 24.7.1988 the owners of the buildings in Ashok Nagar were directed to furnish details of their buildings. There is no provision for giving general notice through a newspaper. Section 134 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 provides for giving notice to the owners or occupiers or both and section 482 provides how service of notice etc., is to be effected on owner or occupier of the premises. None of these provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 as followed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for assessing the annual value of the holdings. In view of the fact that assessment of annual value of the holdings belonging to the owners at Ashok Nagar which is within Argora and Kadru villages has been done without complying with the procedure laid down in the PMC Act assessment orders fixing annual value of holdings must be set aside consequently, the demand made as evidenced by annexure-1 series must also be set aside. 12. Mr. Basudeo Prasad submitted that as no civil amenities like water, light, conservancy, etc. are being provided by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it has no jurisdiction to make any demand. In support of his contention he relied on A.C. Mitra v. State of Bihar & others 1967 BLJR 135. In that case, the jurisdiction of the Patna Municipal Corporation to impose professional tax was challenged. One or the grounds was that no guideline has been provided in the PMC Act, which must be followed to fix the rate of professional tax. The provision was bad. It was observed that the Corporation requires money to discharge its statutory obligation and the Corporation is expected to raise such fund as may be necessary to meet its obligation. In the judgment, there is no observation which supports the submission of Mr. Basudeo Prasad that unless he civic amenities are provide the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is not entitled to make any demand. There is no doubt that the Corporation must keep in view the relevant provisions of this Act namely sections 124, 125, 126, 127 and other sections. 13. In the judgment, there is no observation which supports the submission of Mr. Basudeo Prasad that unless he civic amenities are provide the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is not entitled to make any demand. There is no doubt that the Corporation must keep in view the relevant provisions of this Act namely sections 124, 125, 126, 127 and other sections. 13. The application is allowed in part, and the demand raised by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation against the owners of the buildings in Ashok Nagar which is within Argora and Kadru villages as evidenced by Annexure-1 series, is quashed. The Rancai Municipal Corporation shall proceed in accordance with law. 14. During the course of submission, Mr. Basudeo Prasad stated that as responsible citizens, the members of the Society who own the buildings at Ashok Nagar have no objection to the filing of the details required under section 134 of the PMC Act. We direct the members of the Society, who are present in this Court through the petitioner-Society, to submit their returns as required under section 134 of the PMC Act by October, 1990. No notice shall be required to be given by the Chief Executive Officer of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation under section 134 of the Act to the owners or occupiers of the premises. The Chief Executive Officer shall proceed against the defaulting owners in accordance with the PMC Act. Application allowed in part.