JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Clause Courts Act presented by the Defendant against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, Balasore, arising out of a suit brought by the Chairman of the Balasore Municipality for realisation of Rs. 28/5/- as arrears of latrine and holding-taxes in respect of Holding No. 24 of the Balasore Municipality. Defendant Parbati Dei is the wife of one Kailash Chandra Rana. The claim is in respect of arrears for 12 quarters. 2. The unchallenged findings of the Court below are worth being quoted here. The suit-holding is the ancestral property of Kailash Chandra Rana, the husband of Defendant-Petitioner. It has been found categorically that Kailash is the owner of the suit holding and that Kailash is principally liable. It is important to note that the Defendant has been sued on the basis that she is the occupier of the holding along with bel husband Kailash. The Court below has, however, decreed the Plaintiff's suit on the basis of the finding that Section 156 of the New Orissa Municipal Act is a bar to entertain the present civil suit. 3. It would be pertinent to quote two sections of the said Act for the purpose of deciding the point. Section 141 is the basic section imposing the liability. It rum as follows: Section 141 Taxes by whom payable: Except as otherwise provided in this Taxes by Act, any tax which is assessed on the annual value of holding shall be payable by the owner of holding. It is clear, therefore, that it is the owner alone who is liable to pay the aforesaid taxes, and further it is clear that the present Defendant is not the owner which remains uncontroverted. There is another section of the Act which makes the occupier liable under certain circumstances, and that is Section 173. It is stated before me by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that Section 173 is irrelevant for the determination of the question in the present case. There is another section of the Act which makes the occupier liable under certain circumstances, and that is Section 173. It is stated before me by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that Section 173 is irrelevant for the determination of the question in the present case. Now the most important section on the basis of which the learned Court below has decreed the Plaintiff's suit is Section 156(1) which need be quoted: Section 156(1) Bar of wits: No objection shall be taken to any assessment or valuation nor shall the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. It is also provided in the said section that the order of the appellate authority constituted under the Act is final. It is clear to me that if only the assessment is illegal or wrong, the Civil Court cannot go into the question of liability and Section 156 is a bar but on the contrary if the person assessed and the assessment itself is completely without jurisdiction, in my opinion the Civil Court must have always jurisdiction to enter into the question whether under the four corners of the Municipal Act, the municipal authorities had any jurisdiction to assess the liability of the Defendant. As I have already quoted Section 141, it Is the owner alone who is liable for the tax and the occupier is not. The Municipal authorities on the basis of no provision of the Act had any jurisdiction to make the Defendant liable for the aforesaid taxes. The taxation, therefore, is completely without jurisdiction and that this question goes to the very root of the powers of the municipal authorities and the Civil Court should and must assume jurisdiction to interfere with and investigate the question. To hold otherwise would be in my opinion, completely unsafe for the protection of the rights of the citizens and to interfere with the paramount jurisdiction of the Civil Court without any warrant. 4. The Civil Revision, under the above circumstances succeeds as the taxation was without jurisdiction. The order of the S.C.C. Judge is set aside. The civil revision is allowed. The Petitioner will be entitled to costs throughout. Hearing fee of this civil revision is assessed at Rs. 50/-(rypees fifty). Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed