ORDER 1. The petitioner, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jabailpur has filed this petition praying for quashing the demand made by the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur towards the recovery of the property tax, safai tax, water tax, electricity charges, development charges from 21.7.1986 onwards. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent Corporation not to encash the fixed deposit receipts submitted by the petitioner to prevent attachment of the property amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/-. The petitioner has also prayed for refund of the excess amount of taxes paid by the petitioner. 2. The short and only issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti does not fall within the area of the Municipal Corporation in view of proviso to section 9 (3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation has no power or authority to levy any tax upon the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid provision of the Mandi Adhiniyam, as the petitioner does not come within the area of the Municipal Corporation, notices as well as the recovery proceedings undertaken by the respondent Corporation be quashed and the amount having recovered from the petitioner be refunded to it. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have issued several notices seeking recovery of Rs. 4,89,581.31 paise towards the property tax and other dues for which notices were issued on 22.2.91, 31.7.91, 9.8.91, etc. It is submitted that on 5.18.91 the petitioner submitted Rs. 50,000/- under protest and on 20.11.91 again deposited fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs before the respondent Corporation in spite of which the respondent initiated further recovery proceedings for recovery of the property tax, hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition in which this Court by order dated 21.1.1992 granted interim relief preventing the respondent from enchasing the fixed deposit receipts. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that since then no proceedings for levy of property tax has been initiated by the respondent Corporation against the petitioner in respect of the market yard. 4. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that since then no proceedings for levy of property tax has been initiated by the respondent Corporation against the petitioner in respect of the market yard. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Municipal Corporation area has been notified by the State Government and the Krishi Upaj Mandi fell within the Corporation area and in such circumstances the Corporation has the right to recover property tax and other taxes from the petitioner. 5. A similar issue came up before this Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khandwa v. Khandwa Municipal Corporation, M.P. No. 741/ 91 and this Court vide order dated May, 1997, which is reported in 1991 (I) JLJ 153 has held that in view of the proviso to section 9 (3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, the area of the market yard or sub-market yard or any other premises used for the purposes of the Board is not deemed to be included in the area of the Municipal Corporation and in such circumstances the Corporation has no power or authority to levy taxes in the following terms:-. 13. From bare regarding of this provision the Municipal Corporation is empowered to recover tax within its limits and it has no jurisdiction to recover tax beyond the limits of the city. The Corporation has no jurisdiction to recover the property tax in respect of the area which is beyond its jurisdiction. Articly 265 of he Constitution of India prohibits imposition of tax without any authority of law. Unless the Municipal Corporation has an authority of law it cannot recover property tax. The proviso to sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Act cannot be read in a limited sense but it is to be seen that the intention of Legislature is to keep the area of market yard and market committee out of the limits of the Municipal Corporation. 14. From the aforesaid discussion, the Municipal Corporation has on right to levy or collect property tax from the petitioner/Mandi Samiti. In the result, the petition succeeds and the notices of demand for property tax from the Mandi Samiti with effect from 21.7.1986 are quashed. The Municipal Corporation has power to recover tax prior to 2.1.1986 before insertion of proviso by the amendment in the Adhiniyam. There shall no order as to costs. In the result, the petition succeeds and the notices of demand for property tax from the Mandi Samiti with effect from 21.7.1986 are quashed. The Municipal Corporation has power to recover tax prior to 2.1.1986 before insertion of proviso by the amendment in the Adhiniyam. There shall no order as to costs. " 6. Similarly in a case arising from this Court wherein levy of tax on a Krishi Upaj Mandi had been quashed by this Court and the matter travelled upto the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and others. (2008) 12 SCC 364 , the Supreme Court after considering the scope and impact of the proviso to section 9 (3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, upheld the order passed by this Court quashing the levy of taxes by the Municipal Corporation, Ratlam. It was held that in the absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 9 (3), of the Act, no interference in the order passed by the High Court could be made. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that in the view of the proviso to section 9 (3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, the premises used as a market yard or a sub-market yard shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation and in such circumstances the Municipal Corporation cannot levy any property tax or other taxes on the area used for the aforesaid purposes. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the impugned notices and the recovery sought to be made by the respondent Corporation from the petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is hereby quashed and it is directed that the fixed deposit receipts be returned and any amount received from the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner Krishi Upai Mandi Samiti. It is clarified that the aforesaid order made by this Court only relates to the premises used by the petitioner as a market yard or sub-market yard and no other premises. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition tiled by the petitioner stands allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.