Padampat Singhania v. N. K. , Kanpur — 1967 DIGILAW 225 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - The petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 dated 12th September, 1962, anti 30th March, 1961, and for consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioners are executors under a will dated 4th June, 1951, executed by Late Smt. Indramani Singhania of Kanpur who died on 25/26th December, 1953. By the aforesaid will Smt. Indramani Singhania created a trust, partly for charitable purposes and the petitioners were directed to take such steps as were necessary for the fulfilment of the various purposes set out in the will. 3. Smt. Singhania was possessed of considerable moveable and immoveable properties which were subject-matter of the will. One of the immoveable properties left behind by her was the Baijnath Bankey Behari Lai Woollen Mills, Kanpur, which is situate on municipal plot No. 84155 at Anwarganj within the limits of the erstwhile Municipal Board, Kanpur. Proceedings for the assessment of the annual value of the buildings and the land of the aforesaid mill for the purposes of house and water taxes were taken by the municipal authorities of Kanpur. These proceedings were for fixing the 'annual value' of the aforesaid premises for a period of five years, i.e. 1958 to 1963. The Municipal Engineer assessed the cost of the building at Rs. 7,81,920/- and that on the land at Rs. 1,38,400/-, the total being Rs. 9,20,320/-. The petitioners preferred objections against the aforesaid valuation of the Municipal Engineer. The objection were heard on the 31st January, 1958, by the Executive Officer of the then Municipal Board and were partly allowed by him by an order dated 11th March, 1958, the valuation for the quinquennial period 1958 to 1963 having been reduced to Rs. 8,50,000/-. It appears that there were arrears of house and water taxes in respect of the mills in question for the period prior to 1958, also. These arrears were based upon the 'annual value' as fixed for the earlier quinquennial assessment for the period 1953-58. After the quinquennial assessment for 1958 to 1963 by the Municipal authorities a demand notice in respect of the house and water taxes was served on the petitioner on the 29th May, 1959. These arrears were based upon the 'annual value' as fixed for the earlier quinquennial assessment for the period 1953-58. After the quinquennial assessment for 1958 to 1963 by the Municipal authorities a demand notice in respect of the house and water taxes was served on the petitioner on the 29th May, 1959. In this notice there was not only a demand made for the taxes which were based on the annual valuation of the building and the premises determined for The quinquennial period 1953 to 1963 but also a demand in respect of the arrears of taxes which were based upon the valuation fixed for the years 1958 to 1963. By the aforesaid notice an amount of 2656.25 was demanded as house-tax and a similar amount was demanded as water-tax, the total being Rs. 5,312.50 in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1959. These sums were demanded on the basis of the valuations and assessments made for the period 1958 to 1963. For the period ending 1958, the amounts demanded were Rs. 11,953.13 on account of house and a similar amount on account of water-tax. As already stated, the demand for the latter period was based on the valuations and assessments made for the period 1953 to 1958. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Executive Officer dated 11th March, 1958, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 160 of the U. P. Municipalities Act before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, who was the person authorised to hear appeals under that provision. An amount of Rs. 5,312.50 was deposited by the petitioners when they filed the appeal. Before the appeal could be decided by the Commissioner, the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyamcame into force and the city of Kanpur was constituted into a Nagar Mahapalika. By virtue of Section 576 sub-sec. (3) of the Adhiniyam the appeal pending before the Commissioner was transferred to the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur, to whom appeals lay under Section 472 sub-sec. (1) of the Adhiniyam, The Judge Small Causes Court took the view that the petitioners had not complied with the requirements of law in as for as they had not deposited the entire amount of tax which they were liable to do before the appeal could be entertained. (1) of the Adhiniyam, The Judge Small Causes Court took the view that the petitioners had not complied with the requirements of law in as for as they had not deposited the entire amount of tax which they were liable to do before the appeal could be entertained. Against the order of the Judge Small Causes Court, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 476 of the Adhiniyam. This appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, by his order dated 12th September, 1962. The view taken by the Judge Small Causes Court was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have filed the abovementioned writ petition. 5. The sole question to be determined in this writ petition is as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioners was maintainable or not by reason of their having failed to comply with the requirements of Section 161 (b) of the U. P. Municipalities Act or Section 472 (2) (e) of the Adhiniyam. The taxes which a Municipal Board is authorised to impose are enumerated in Section 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Under Section 128 (1) (i), the Municipal Boards are em-powered to impose "a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both". Section 128 (1) (x) giN es power to Municipal Boards to impose "a water-tax on the annual Value of buildings or lands or of both." Thus what are generally called house and water-tax are taxes imposed for which the basis of assessment is the 'annual value' of building or lands or of both. "Annual value" is defined in Section 140 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The relevant portion of it runs as follows: "140 (1) 'Annual value' " means, (a) In the case of railway stations, hotels, colleges, schools, hospitals, factories, and other such buildings, a proportion not exceeding five per centum, to be fixed by rule made in this behalf of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present costs of erecting the building to the estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto, and (b) ............... Since we are concerned with a factory, 1 am leaving-out those portions of Section 140 which are not concerned with factories. Since we are concerned with a factory, 1 am leaving-out those portions of Section 140 which are not concerned with factories. Section 141 of the Municipalities Act requires that, "When a tax on buildings or lands or both is imposed, the board shall cause an assessment list of all buildings or lands or both in the municipality to be prepared containing (a) ................. (b) .................. (c) ......................... (d) the annual letting value or other particulars determining the annual value; and (e) the amount of the tax assessed thereon. 6. Thus in the assessment list the annual letting value and other particulars determining the annual value have to be shown apart from the amounts of tax actually assessed. Section 142 of the U. P. Municipalities Act provides that, "When the assessment list has been prepared the board shall give public notice of the place where the list or copy thereof may be inspected; and every person claiming to be either owner or occupier of property included in the list and an agent of such person, shall be at liberty to inspect the list and to make extracts therefrom without charge." Section 143 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act runs as follows: "143(1). The board shall at the same time give public notice of the date, not less than one month thereafter, when it will proceed to consider the valuations and assessments entered therein; and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed or the assessment is increased, it shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property, if known." Section 143 (1) thus requires a board to give a public notice of a date when it will proceed to consider the valuations and assessments entered in the assessment list. Under sub-sec (2) of Section 143 a person who disputes the correctness of the assessment list has a right to file objections against the valuations and assessments indicated therein. It is thus clear that the objection is to the valuations and assessments. If an abjection is sustained the authority empowered to hear the objection under Section 143 sub-sec. (3) (c) causes amendments to be made in the valuations and assessments in the assessment list. It is thus clear that the objection is to the valuations and assessments. If an abjection is sustained the authority empowered to hear the objection under Section 143 sub-sec. (3) (c) causes amendments to be made in the valuations and assessments in the assessment list. Thus it is obvious that the objection filed by the petitioners against the proposed valuation was with respect to the valuations made by the Municipal Engineer of the building And the land of the mill in question. The Executive Officer of the board by his order dated 11th March, 1958, reduced the valuation to Rs. 8,50,000. Section 160(1) gives a right of appeal to an aggrieved party against an order passed under Section 143, sub-sec. (3). The order of the Executive Officer dated 11th March, 1958, evidently was one under Section 142 sub-sec. (3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner was one under Section 160 sub-sec. (1). Section 161 of the Act, the scope of which has to be considered, provides as follow: "161. No such appeal shall be heard and determined unless - (a) the appeal is in the case of tax assessed on the annual value of buildings or lands or both, brought within thirty days next after the date of communication of the order (exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof), and, in the case of any other tax, within thirty days next after the date of the receipt of the notice of assessment or of alteration of assessment or, if no notice has been given within thirty days next after the date of the first demand under the assessment or alteration of assessment; and (b) the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him in the municipal office." 7. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it obvious that the objection as contemplated by Section 143 is an objection to the valuations made in respect of a particular quinquennial assessment and the appeal is also confined to that particular assessment. When Section 161 sub-sec. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it obvious that the objection as contemplated by Section 143 is an objection to the valuations made in respect of a particular quinquennial assessment and the appeal is also confined to that particular assessment. When Section 161 sub-sec. (b) provides that no such appeal shall be heard and determined unless the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him, it evidently means the amount which has been demanded from the appellant on the basis of the valuation forming the subject-matter of the objection under Section 143 and the appeal under Section 160. It cannot mean such amounts as are in arrears in respect of the earlier assessment which does not form the subject-matter of appeal at all. 8. The requirements of Section 472(2)(e) of the Adhiniyam are still clearer. Section 472 (2)(e) is in the following terms:- "472(2)(e). No such appeal shall be heard unless - (a) .................. (b) .................. (c) .................. (d) .................. (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against an annual value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Mukhya Nagar "Adhikari." 9. A mere reading of the provision makes it obvious that only an amount of property tax assessed upon such value as is the subject-matter of the appeal is required to be deposited by the appellant. In my opinion, the mere fact that a composite notice of demand was issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay not only tax under the assessment, which formed the subject-matter of the appeal as also arrears due on the basis of valuation under the earlier assessment, did not require the appellants to deposit the entire amount demanded before the appeal filed by him could be heard and determined. In my view the Judge Small Cause Court and the learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur were legally unjustified in dismissing the petitioners appeal and refusing to hear them on merits. 10. I consequently allow the petition, quash the orders of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 30th March, 1961, and that of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 12th September, 1962, and order respondent No. 3 to hear and decide the petitioners appeal in accordance with law. 10. I consequently allow the petition, quash the orders of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 30th March, 1961, and that of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 12th September, 1962, and order respondent No. 3 to hear and decide the petitioners appeal in accordance with law. If the amounts of tax which had been deposited by the petitioners has been withdrawn by them, they shall deposit it before the appeal filed by them is heard by the respondents. Under the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.