JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - Before October, 1950, Ganjdundwara was a noticed area but from October, 1, 1950, it was converted into a municipal board. Under a notification dated August, 19, 1922, circumstances and property tax was imposed in the noticed area and this tax was continuously realised by the notified area committee and later by the municipal board. From the year 1954-55 the municipal board refused to realise this tax. Several reminders warrant by the Commissioner, Agra revision, asking the municipal board to assess and realise this tax ut it refused to do so. On January 27, 1961, the Commissioner passed an order under Sec. 35 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, stating that despite persistent reminders, the municipal board took no steps to realise the circumstances and property tax since the year 1954-55, that the arrears of tax were accumulating and the board was put to a yearly loss of Rs. 10,000/- and that the financial condition of the board was not ground and directed the municipal board to explain its omission and to show cause why action should not be taken against it for not preparing the assessment list of circumstances and property tax. In spite of this order, the board did not take any step to realise the tax and passed a resolution that it did not desire to realise this tax. Thereupon the Commissioner passed another order under Sec. 35 of the Act, directing the board to realise the tax within two months of the receipt of the order and report compliance by June 30, 1961, failing which an order under Sec. 35(2) would have to be passed, entrusting this work to the District Magistrate. Still the board took no steps to realise the tax. On September 5, 1961, the Commissioner passed an order under Sec. 35 (2), appointing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aligan, to complete and finalise the assessment list and directed that the expenses of performing this duty be paid to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the board. In pursuance of this order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate prepared an assessment list in which the petitioner was assessed to Rs. 40/- as circumstances and property tax. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner dated September 5, 1961, and for an order restraining the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from proceeding further with the assessment proceedings. In pursuance of this order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate prepared an assessment list in which the petitioner was assessed to Rs. 40/- as circumstances and property tax. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner dated September 5, 1961, and for an order restraining the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from proceeding further with the assessment proceedings. These reliefs are prayed for on two grounds, namely, 1. that the circumstances and property tax was not initially levied in accordance with law in the notified area and as such it could not be continued by the municipal board; and 2. then there being no duty cast upon the municipal board to realise this tax, no order under Sec. 35 could be passed by the Commissioner. 3. It is necessary to examine the provisions under which the circumstances and property tax was originally levied in the notified area. Sub-Sec. (1) (a) of Sec. 338 of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides that the provincial Government may, by notification, apply or adapt to a notified area the provisions of any section of this Act, or of any Act, which may be applied to a municipality, or part of such section, or any rule, regulation or bye-law in force or which can be imposed in a municipality under the provisions of this Act or any other Act, subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it may think lit. Under this power, the provincial Government, on July 6, 1917, issued Notification No. 2218/XI-70 H, extending certain provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act to notified areas in U.P. Secs. 128 to 137 of the U.P. Municipalities Act were not extended to notified areas by this notification but Sec. 153 was extended. Cl. (b) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 338 of the U.P. Municipalities Act empowered the provincial Government, by notification, to impose, in the whole or a part of such area, any tax which might be imposed therein under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act or any other Act if the said area were a municipality, It, therefore, appears from these provisions that, in notified areas, taxes could be imposed by the provincial Government and the Provincial Government was not required to follow the procedure laid down in Secs. 131 to 135 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 131 to 135 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Sec. 153 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which was extended to notified areas provided, inter alia, that the assessment, collection or composition of taxes shall be regulated and governed by rules. The power of the Provincial Government under Cl. (b) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 338 was delegated, by Notification No. 2032/ XI-70-H dated June 11, 1917, to the Commissioners of Divisions. Thus, the effect of all these provisions, is that the Commissioners of Divisions were empowered to levy certain taxes including the circumstances and property tax in notified areas. They were not required to follow the procedure prescribed by Secs. 131 to 135 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. They could make rules regulating the assessment, collection or composition of such taxes. In the exercise of this powder, the Commissioner, Agra Division, issued Notification No. 5315/XXIII-144 on August 19,1922, in the notified area of Ganjdundwara. A copy of this notification is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure A. This copy of the notification indicates that the Commissioner was exercising powers under Sec. 338(1) (a) and Sec. 152 o the U.P. Municipalities Act. There seems to be some mistake in quoting these sections. The correct sections should be Sec. 338(1) (b) and Sec. 153. In the notification, under the heading Description of Tax, the tax is imposed in the following words: - "A tax on all persons residing or carrying on any trade or professional or owning property within the limit of the notified area Ganjdundwar will be levied according to their circumstances and property at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent. Income below Rs. 100/ per annum will be exempted." 4. Thereafter the notification sets down taxation rules for the assessment of tax on circumstances and property. The notification is a composite notification, the first part of it imposing the circumstances and property tax under Sec. 338(1) (b) of the Ac and the later part prescribing the rules as required by Sec. 153 of the Act. This tax was realised by the notified area committee so long as is existed. The municipal board also realised this tax till before the year 1954-55. It has already been state above that the notified area was converted to a municipality in October, 1950. This tax was realised by the notified area committee so long as is existed. The municipal board also realised this tax till before the year 1954-55. It has already been state above that the notified area was converted to a municipality in October, 1950. Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 333-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides that where a municipality is created in place of a notified area all taxes, fees, licences etc. imposed or levied, on the date immediately preceding the date of the creation of municipality, by the notified are committee shall be deemed to have been imposed or levied by the board under or in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act and shall, until modified or hanged, continue to be so realisable. It is under this provision that the municipal board continued to realise the circumstances and property tax originally levied in the notified area. From all that has been seated above, it is apparent hat the circumstances and property tax was levied in the notified area in accordance with the provisions of law and was a valid levy and that the tax was continued and validly realised by the municipal board. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner, in levying this tax, was bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Secs. 131 to 135 of the C.P. Municipalities Act and for this he relies upon a note appearing in the Notified Area Manual of 1951 was at page 27. This note occurs at the beginning of Chapter V of the U.P. Municipalities Act, as extended to notified areas. It sates that Secs. 128 to 137 of the U.P. Municipalities Act have been omitted as taxes will be imposed under Sec. 338(1) (b) of the Act by the Commissioner and not by the notified area committee and that the powers of the Commissioner regarding the imposition of taxation will be restricted by the revisions of those sections. This note is not a part of the notification extending certain provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act to notified areas but is merely a note prepared by the compilers of the manual. It is obviously wrong. Secs. 128 to 137 not having been included among the sections made applicable to notified areas, the Commissioner, in imposing taxes in notified areas, was not required to follow the provisions of these sections. 6. It is obviously wrong. Secs. 128 to 137 not having been included among the sections made applicable to notified areas, the Commissioner, in imposing taxes in notified areas, was not required to follow the provisions of these sections. 6. The only other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner against the invalidity of the original imposition of tax was that the notification of August 19, 1922, merely prescribed the rules but did not levy the tax. As already observed above, the notification levies the tax as well as prescribes the rules. In my judgment, the original levy of the circumstances and property tax in the notified area and its continuance by the municipal board are in accordance with law. 7. The second contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner could only pass the orders under Sec. 35 if the board had made a default in performing its duty. It is urged that the duties of the board are enumerated in Sec. 7 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and it is only upon a default in the performance of one of these duties that the Commissioner can validly pass an order under Sec. 35. The further contention is that the realisation of a tax is not one of the duties enumerated in Sec. 7 and that as such the Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. 35 for the refusal of the board to realise the circumstances and property tax. Even if the petitioner is right in contending that an order under Sec. 35 can be passed only if there is default in the performance of a duty enumerated in Sec. 7, I am of the view that the municipal board defaulted in performing the duties imposed upon it by Cl. (e) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 7 which relates to "fulfilling any obligation imposed upon a municipal board by law." The notification of August 19, 1922, which imposed the circumstances and property tax was law and it provided that circumstances and property tax "will be levied" on all persons residing or carrying on any trade or profession or owning property within the limits of the notified area of Ganjdundwara. This law continued to be in force when the notified area was converted info a municipal board. This law continued to be in force when the notified area was converted info a municipal board. This law clearly imposed an obligation upon the municipal board to assess and recover circumstances and property tax from the persons who were liable to pay it. In refusing to do so, the Municipal Board failed to fulfil an obligation imposed upon it by law and committed a default, as contemplated by Sec. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the municipal board sought to justify the action of the municipal board and contended that even where a tax was validly levied, it was discretionary with the municipal board to realise it or not to realise it. In my opinion, once a tax has been validly imposed, the municipal board is bound to realise it. If it desires to abolish the tax, it can do so only by following the procedure prescribed by Sec. 136 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Without following this procedure and without abolishing the tax it is not open to the municipal board to say that it will not realise the tax. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that there was a duty imposed upon the municipal board to realise the circumstances and property tax and that, in failing to realise the same, it made a default in the performance of is duty imposed upon it by or under the U.P. Municipalities Act and that, in these circumstances, the Commissioner had full power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Sec. 35 of the Act. 8. There is no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.