JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an unsuccessful Plaintiffs appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore, dismissing his suit. The Plaintiff commenced a suit for a permanent injunction for restraining the Defendant, the Bhadrak Town Grama Panchayat, from collecting certain registration fees on the sale of cattle from the sellers in a Hat situated within its jurisdiction. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 300/- as damages. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are those: The Plaintiff is the sixteen annas owner of the land in dispute having inherited the same from his mother. A Hat is held on that land every Wednesday where cattle are brought for purposes of sale. The Defendant by their notification dated 27-1-1954 wanted to realise the registration fees from the sellers of cattle in that Hat, the fee being one piece per rupee on the sale-proceeds. In pursuance of this notification, the Defendant began to collect registration fees from 3-2-1954. The Plaintiff thereupon severed a registered notice dated 1-2-1954 on the Defendant through his pleader which the Defendant received on 4-2-1954. This notice purported to have issued u/s 110 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (Orissa Act 15 of 1948) intimating the Plaintiff's desire to bring a suit for perpetual injunction against the Defendant. The Plaintiff thus filed the suit, contending that the constitution of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat is illegal and the Defendant, a corporate body, not having been duly constituted, the action taken by it was against the law and accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to make any realisation from the sellers in the Hat held on the private land of the Plaintiff. 3. The Defendant in their defence challenged the title of the Plaintiff to the suit land. They contended that the suit was not maintainable u/s 111 of the Grama Panchayat Act. Further, their contention was that the notice u/s 110 of the Act was not in accordance with law. According to them the Wednesday Hat is within the local area of Bhadrak Grama Panchayat which is entitled to impose fees u/s 44(2)(d) of the Grama Panchayat Act on the registration of cattle sold in the Hat and the realisation was made under Rule 127(2) of the said Act as sanctioned by the Local Government. 4. According to them the Wednesday Hat is within the local area of Bhadrak Grama Panchayat which is entitled to impose fees u/s 44(2)(d) of the Grama Panchayat Act on the registration of cattle sold in the Hat and the realisation was made under Rule 127(2) of the said Act as sanctioned by the Local Government. 4. The trial court on a consideration of the issues as framed by him, decreed the suit in part restraining the Defendant from enforcing compulsory registration of cattle sold in the Hat on the ground that the Bhadrak town Gram Panchayat though has been properly constituted and is entitled to realise fees for registration of cattle sold in the Hat, yet cannot compel such registration but were only entitled to realise fees voluntarily paid by the parties who voluntarily register the transaction in the register of Grama Panchayat. Against this decision, the Defendant Grama Panchayat carried an appeal and the Plaintiff also filed a cross-appeal contending that the suit should have been decreed in full, and the Defendant should have been restrained from realising any fee at all whether voluntary or otherwise. The appellate court, however, came to a different finding disagreeing with the trial court and held that the Defendant Grama Panchayat was entitled to levy and collect fees and accordingly dismissed the Plaintiff's suit, and I the cross-appeal 5. Mr. B.K. Pal, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant for the first time raised an interesting question of law in this Court that Rule 127(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules, 1949, is ultra vires the Orissa Act 15 of 1948 as also the Constitution of India. Unfortunately no such issue was framed at the trial stage nor was it argued before the court of appeal below. In my view, since it requires certain investigation of facts, expression of any opinion by me in that behalf would be merely academic. Hence, I would refrain from expressing any opinion thereon. 6. Mr. Pal, however, raised three other contentions before this Court: (1) That the Bhadrak town Grama Panchayat has not been legally constituted; (2) The sanction accorded by the State Government for levy and realisation of fee is not valid ; and (3) In the absence of any power or authority given to the Grama Panchayat for registration of the sale of animals, no fee can be lawfully levied thereon. 7. 7. u/s 1(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act a provision has been made that it shall extend to the whole of the State of Orissa except to any area which has been or may be constituted hereafter as a Municipality or a Notified area under the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. At the same time, it is also provided that when any local area is excluded from a Municipality or a Notified area under the provisions of the said Act, the provisions of the Act shall be extended to such an area. The learned Subordinate Judge has discussed at some length the potentiality of the Bhadrak town being constituted a Municipality hereafter. It may have that potentiality, but the fact remains that the Bhadrak town has not yet been constituted a Municipality or a Notified area under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. So long as it has not been constituted a Municipality, the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1948, is bound to apply to the Bhadrak town. Thus, there is no substance in the argument of Mr. Pal, as far as this point is concerned. 8. With regard to the sanction, it must be remembered that the Bhadrak Grama Panchayat has been validly constituted by Notification No. 2733 L.S.G. dated 27-3-50 including the village in question. Section 4(2) empowers the Grama Panchayat to impose certain tax, toll, fee or rate with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government and subject to such minimum and maximum rates as may be prescribed. Under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44 the Grama Panchayat can impose fees on the registration of ?animals (now substituted by the word ?cattle) sold within the local area. The section referred to is as per Ext. G dated 27-12-50. It appears that the Government received three letters (exts. A/1, A/2, and A/3) from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as was then provided, for previous sanction for imposing tax, toll etc. as per Section 44(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. Ext. All was in respect of the Madhupur Grama Panchayat and the letter of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was numbered as letter No. 463 Ext. A/2 similarly related to the Grama Panchayat of Nizgarh and Raj Nilgiri and the letter was numbered as No. 499. So also Ext. A/3 was in respect of Saintala Grama Panchayat and the letter was numbered as No. 818. A/2 similarly related to the Grama Panchayat of Nizgarh and Raj Nilgiri and the letter was numbered as No. 499. So also Ext. A/3 was in respect of Saintala Grama Panchayat and the letter was numbered as No. 818. All the foregoing three Grama Panchayats sought the previous sanction of the Local Government for imposing tax, toll, fees or rate as provided u/s 44(2) of the Grama Panchayat Act. Ext. G refers to letters Nos. 463 and 499 dated 5-7-1950 and 12-7-1950 respectively and two other letters. Ext. G as far as is relevant for our present purposes is as follows: Sanction of Government for levy of tax, toll or fee under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Grama Panchayat Act: I am directed to communicate to you the general sanction of the Government authorising Grama Panchayats already established in the State to levy the following tax, toll or fees subject to such maximum or minimum rates as prescribed under Rule 127 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Rules. Section 44(2).... (c) Fees on the registration of cattle sold within the local area.... Mr. Pal's whole argument was that the Government is not entitled to issue such a general sanction. Section 44(2) does not prohibit the Government from issuing any general sanction. It also does not provide for issuing individual sanctions in respect of individual Grama Panchayats. The general sanction must include a special sanction for each particular Grama Panchayat. Thus, from the plain language employed in Sub-section (2) of Section 44 it is apparent that a general sanction could be issued by the Provincial Government. From ext. G it is also clear that a copy of this sanction was issued to the Sarpanch of Bhadrak Grama Sabha by letter No. DB 421 (21) dated 8-2-1951. Thus, there is no substance in this argument also. 9. The next argument advanced by Mr. Pal was that in the absence of any power or authority given to the Grama Panchayat for registration of the sale of animals a fee cannot be levied on the sales thereof. In this connection, he relied upon the very language in Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44. He urged that nowhere the Act Provides for empowering the Grama Panchayat to register an anima within its local area. In this connection, he relied upon the very language in Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44. He urged that nowhere the Act Provides for empowering the Grama Panchayat to register an anima within its local area. All that Clause (d) empowers is that with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, the Grama Panchayat may impose a fee on the registration of animals or cattle sold within its local area. This argument does not appear to have any force at all. Clause (d) envisages both the power of registration as well as the levying of fee. In this connection, I may refer to Clause (f) of the same sub-section which provides that fees for the use of slaughter houses (and cart-stands) maintained by the Grama Panchayat may be imposed by such Panchayat. Here also it refers to both the power to maintain a slaughter-house or cart-stand and to levy the fees. Hence, I do not feel inclined to accept this contention. 10. In an unreported recent decision of this Court in Gopilal Joshi v. Baudhgarh Grama Panchayat O.J.C. No. 454 of 1956, this very Section 42(2) and the Rule 127 came up for consideration though in a somewhat different form. It was held therein that "If the levy of tolls as alleged by the Petitioner is sought to be justified from the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1271 the levy should be on and valorem basis subject to a minimum of three pies and maximum of one anna per rupee of the value of the goods sold. But the allegations of the Petitioner are to the effect that the levy is made at a flat rate of eight annas per maund on rice and six pies per maund on other articles. It is true that under Clause (0) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, levy of a toll of a different types may be made by the Grama Panchayat with the previous approval of the State Government. In view of the above principle, it must be held that the Grama Panchayat in question had both the power of registration as well as the power to impose fees. In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed