ORDER : 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd of July, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 2672/2002 and the order dated 4th October, 2002 in Review Petition No.43 of 2002 filed by the Food Corporation of India, appellant herein [for short "FCI]. 2. By the impugned judgment the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the FCI against the tax levied on them by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika. 3. The High Court, without going into the facts of the case, relying upon a decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad and another [ 1999 (6) SCC 74 ] held that the point in issue was covered by the said judgment of this Court. 4. The High Court did not refer to the Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Appeal No. 259/1989 in WP No. 3413/88 dated 3rd December, 1992 wherein the Division Bench had held regarding that the property in dispute in the present case was owned by the Central Government and not by the FCI. It was further held that the Central Government was the owner of the property and it was not liable to pay property tax, i.e., non-agricultural assessment, for use of the land in view of the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution of India. 5. Counsel appearing for the FCI contends that the judgment in Food Corporation of India (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case the property was owned and possessed by the Food Corporation unlike the present case where the property is owned by the Central Government. Although no clear cut finding has been recorded by this Court in the aforesaid judgment as to who was the owner but from a reading of the first paragraph of the judgment shows that the property was owned by the Food Corporation. If it is so, then the judgment in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. If it is so, then the judgment in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Western Coal Field Ltd. vs. S.A.D. Authority [ 1982(1) SCC 125 ], Municipal Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality v. ITDC [ 1995(5) SCC 251 ], and Electronic Corporation of India v. State of A.P. [ 1999(4) SCC 458 ], to contend that even if the property formally vests in the Central Government of which possession is handed over to the FCI, the FCI being in the effective control and possession of the property, would be liable to pay the tax in question. 7. Be that as it may, since the High Court has not gone into this question, we are not inclined to record any finding thereon as the High Court has not recorded any other finding. 8. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case [W.P. No. 2672/2002] is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 9. All contentions are left open to the parties. Civil Appeal No. 3176 Of 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14760 of 2003) 10. Leave granted. 11. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition relying upon the finding recorded by the first appellate court in its order dated 16th September, 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 425/1996, relying upon which the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Punjab had dismissed the appeal filed under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 by the FCI. 12. The judgment of the first appellate court in CA. No. 425/1996 has been challenged by the FCI in which leave has been granted and the R.S. A. No. 2104/99 is still pending before the High Court. 13. We are of the considered view that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition relying upon the findings recorded by the first appellate court which are under challenge and pending consideration in R.S.A No. 2104/99. 14. Since it is a recurring cause for every assessment year, we would request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to post the RSA along with the Writ Petition, which is being remitted back for hearing and disposal as early as possible. 15. 14. Since it is a recurring cause for every assessment year, we would request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to post the RSA along with the Writ Petition, which is being remitted back for hearing and disposal as early as possible. 15. All contentions are left open to the parties to be agitated before the High Court. 16. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 17. Needless to mention that the High Court shall proceed with and decide the matter, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 18. Registry is directed to transmit the entire record of this case to the High Court forthwith.