JUDGMENT By Court The respondent no.1 was served with a demand notice, directing it to deposit holding tax under Section 136 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951. The respondent aggrieved against the said demand approached this Court by filing writ petition being CWJC No. 3942 of 1993(R), which was dismissed as withdrawn and was withdrawn because of the reason of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. After withdrawing the writ petition on 18th January, 1994 the respondent preferred statutory appeal before the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 152 of the Patna Municipal Act, 1951. The appellate authority relying upon the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in one writ petition being CWJC No.1594 of 1987(R), held that in view of the specific written agreement between the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation cannot levy the holding tax upon the respondent on the ground that the building of the respondent is situated over the land of HEC for which the Municipal Corporation is charging consolidated holding tax from the HEC and, therefore, the respondent who has constructed building over the land of the HEC is not liable to pay holding tax. Being aggrieved against the above appellate order dated 1st December, 2001, this writ petition has been preferred by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that building of the respondent is situated on the land of HEC but since the building was constructed by the respondent, therefore, respondent is liable to pay holding tax. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents cannot be held liable to pay the holding tax because of the fact that Municipal Corporation is recovering the holding tax from the HEC's entire property, which include the land over which the building in question of the respondent no.1 is situated. 3. However, we have perused the grounds taken by the respondent in the memo of appeal, copy of which has been placed at Annexure6, and it appears that above was not the case of the respondent before the appellate authority that, since HEC is paying holding tax in terms of the agreement between the HEC and the Municipal Corporation and within land of HEC, the respondent has constructed it's building, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay the holding tax. The respondent's case before the appellate authority was only that before passing order of assessment of tax, the respondent was not given an opportunity of hearing and illegally accepted the report of valuation. It was further submitted that the respondent is run by a religious Society and is, therefore, entitled to exemption from the tax under the Act. Then, ultimately it has been prayed that order may be set aside with direction to the petitioner to re-fix the liability of the respondent. 4. It appears from the Scheme of the Patna Municipal Act, 1951, under which proceedings were initiated at the time of unified Bihar, that Section 124 of the Act of 1951 provides the rate of tax and Section 132 provides the provision fixing liability upon the owner of the holding to pay the tax. Therefore, the holding tax is on holding and liability is of owner. Section 143 of the Act of 1951 answers the issue of the case, where land belongs to one party and house is constructed by other party then the Chief Executive Officer may value such house and land together and may impose thereon one consolidated tax. Therefore, the situation which has been shown to us, is considered under sub section(1) of Section 143 of the Act of 1951, subject to proving the fact that the building on the land of the HEC was constructed by the respondent. 5. Therefore, in a case where land belongs to one and building is constructed by another and said person is paying rent to the owner of the land then in that situation right has been given to the occupier of the building to deduct the amount of tax from the rent payable to the landlord. 6. Subsection (2) of Section 143 further provides that total amount of the tax shall be payable by the owner of the house, who shall thereafter be entitled to deduct, obviously of the said amount from the rent which he pays for the land with such proportion of the tax so paid by him as is equal to the proportion which such rent bears to the annual value of the property. 7. We have also perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment delivered in the case of M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation & Ors.( CWJC no. 7. We have also perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment delivered in the case of M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation & Ors.( CWJC no. 1594 of 1987[R] ) dated 26th June, 1995 as well as Division Bench judgment of the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, delivered in the case of Social Action for relief to the Consumer Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation , reported in 1997[2]PLJR 155. We may observe here that holding tax is a statutory tax and from the facts stated in the judgment delivered in the HEC's case(supra), it is apparent that HEC's proposal for excluding it's land from the Notification covering the land of the Municipal Corporation, Ranchi was turned down by the State Government and since in that case the issue was decided as it was presented before the learned Single Judge in the Court and it has recognized the agreement entered into by the Chairman of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and applied the principle of promissory estoppal against the Municipal Corporation because Municipal Corporation already acted upon that agreement. Therefore, we are not deciding any of the issue with respect to legality and validity of the judgment delivered in the HEC's case vide judgment dated 26th June, 1995 passed in CWJC No.1594 of 1987(R) and not addressing the issue whether statutory tax imposed can be compromised by agreement, when the statutory tax has been imposed by the Act of the legislature of the State and in that situation whether the principle of promissory estoppal can be applied etc., we are not deciding this issue as HEC is not a party before us and claim of the respondent is only that the respondent was not given opportunity of hearing by the assessing authority before determination of the holding tax and it's pleas was not considered that the institution is being run by 5. charitable Society, therefore, it was entitled to exemption from the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the appellate authority cannot be justified when it has been passed contrary to Section 143 of the Act of 1951 and issue has been decided, which has not been raised by the respondent. 8. charitable Society, therefore, it was entitled to exemption from the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the appellate authority cannot be justified when it has been passed contrary to Section 143 of the Act of 1951 and issue has been decided, which has not been raised by the respondent. 8. Therefore, the appellate order dated 1st December, 2001 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation or the officer, who is competent to decide the holding tax under Section 134 of the Act, who may decide the issue after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The petitioner Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the respondent School may take all pleas, including with respect to nature of the right and vesting of the properties in the respondent or the HEC etc. . Since, it is a very old matter, therefore, the authority shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and pass appropriate order.