JUDGMENT : 1. Five associations of the residents of Indira Nagar, Lucknow have filed this writ petition challenging the assessment made by Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow in relation to Indira Nagar Colony and have prayed to quash the same and maintain the same at the rate to which Avas Vikas Parishad had obtained the money at the value fixed by it and to strick down the assessment made by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow deeming it ultra vires and unconstitutional and to make proper assessment having regard to the assessment made of the various houses with reference to value already fixed prior to its inclusion within the limits of city of Lucknow. 2. Indira Nagar colony is a big colony and five types of houses have been constructed in the said colony, namely, (i) Economically weaker section, (ii) lower income group house, (iii) middle income group house, (iv) high income group house and (v) self-financing houses. The constructions were made by U. P. Avas Vikas Parishad after acquiring land and thereafter it framed various schemes. Some land was allotted to the housing societies and they provided plots out of this land to their members for building purposes. Other plots were allotted by the Avas Vikas Parishad to its allottees. In the cost of houses, the following items were charged from the allottees : (a) cost of land, (b) cost of construction, (cj development charges, (d) overhead charges, (e) interest and (f) maintenance charges from the date of construction of the house to. the date when possession was taken. Avas Vikas Parishad was not empowered to levy and tax except to realise water tax which it did and it was also looking after not only supply of water but sewerage, scavenging, repair of roads and street lighting etc. There appears to be no denial of fact that the amount of water tax included the expenses incurred by Avas Vikas Parishad. Vide notification no. 4516-A/11-7-86-1-1987 under section 3 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 read with section 21 of General Clauses Act earlier notification dated 11-2-1959 was cancelled and the area indicated by the boundaries'* was included in the city of Lucknow. Vide notification no. 4516-A/11-7-86-1-1987 under section 3 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 read with section 21 of General Clauses Act earlier notification dated 11-2-1959 was cancelled and the area indicated by the boundaries'* was included in the city of Lucknow. By the said notification a new sub-section was added and it was provided that said area shall become subject to all notifications, rules and regulations, appeals, orders or directions issued or made under the Act and all taxes shall be collected by Nagar Mahapalika. It has been alleged that Nagar Mahapalika has not started rendering any service in the locality nor they have any staff to provide essential services in Indira Nagar Colony. Although Nagar Mahapalika has denied this assertion and it has been stated that it has been providing all facilities in the colony in the same way as it has been doing in other parts of the city after its inclusing in Nagar Mahapalika limits. Notices were issued by Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow for assessment under section 213 and 307 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and owners of houses were required to file their objections, if any, under section 209 (2) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of notice. Said notices were issued in the month of January, 1988. In newspaper notices were published in which it has indicated that objections will be decided by the Executive Committee with effect from 15-2-88. Some of the residents requested to know the criteria of fixing house tax and first letter in that behalf was sent on 1-10-87. On the request of the petitioners a meeting was held with the Administrator even then specific criteria was not indicated. Though on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika it has been stated that they have fixed reasonable guidlines for the same. The factual and legal position was duly explained and most of the members of petitioners were satisfied with then explanation and various persons have made payment after final assessment orders were passed. 3. The petitioners have asserted that their notices disclose that assessment was made arbitrarily and discrimination was being practised openly and instances have been given which are as follows :- The L. I. C. house of Indira Nagar has only two small rooms and the design and accommodation is for all practical purposes the same yet the annual value has been assessed differently, while as house no. D-2029 and no 2421. which re self-occupied, have been valued at Rs. 3,600/-, house no. D-3240 with the same accommodation has been valued at Rs. 4,200/ and bouse no. D-2007, which has been valued at Rs. 5,400- House No. D-2003, which has one addiional room constructed has been valued at Rs. 5400/- and house no. 2023 with one additional room has been valued at Rs. 3,600/-, house no. 2383 which has been converted into a double storeyed house has been valued at Rs. 13,200/- but house no. 2005 with the same accommodation has been valued at Rs. 9,600/. House no. A-375 originally single storeyed H. I. G. house and later on converted into a double storeyed house with garrage altered into a room has been assessed at Rs. 9,600/-. Similarly house no. A-369 with The same accommodation has been assessed at Rs. 9,600/.-, but H. I. G. single storeyed house A 709 has also been assessed at Rs. 9,600/- while house A 627 a single storeyed H. I. G. house has been valued at Rs. 14.4U0/-. 4. This assertion has not been denied in the counter affidavit, but it has been stated .that while making assessment all relevant factors have been taken into consideration, one of the consideration is whether house has been let out and what part has been given on lease and in case house is self- occupied, rebate has been provided for the same and before realisation objections were looked into and personal hearing was given. It has been further stated that the Administrator has framed certain guidelines and assessment are made within its frame-work. This has been challenged by the petitioners. The stand of the petitioner that assessment order was not supplied to them but a notice was published in Times of India and it was indicated that the valuation would be done on the basis of plinth area in respect of self occupied house at the rate of 60 to 70 paise sq. feet per month. It has been further contended that Nagar Mahapalika, State Government and the Lucknow Development Authority have their own colonies which they lease out on rent. feet per month. It has been further contended that Nagar Mahapalika, State Government and the Lucknow Development Authority have their own colonies which they lease out on rent. These colonies such as Park lane, Gulistan, Lawarance, Terraco, Paper Mill colony, Balda Colony, Badshahnagar colony, Mahanagar colony, Nirala Nagar colony are better situated and have better accommodation than Indra Nagar and the accommodation at Indira Nagar can in no case fetch rent prevailing in those colonies. It is further contended that the annual rent fixed by Nagar Mahapalika is against Section 172 and 174 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 5. In view of facts stated above in the counter affidavit and the contention of the petitioner that no services are rendered by Nagar Mahapalika, it is to be noticed that Nagar Mahapalika, is entitled to realise house tax and charge Nagar Mahapalika tax. The expenses incurred by Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad on various heads will not determine the capacity and capability of powers of Nagar Mahapalika. As such this plea obviously has no substance and fails. 6. Regarding rental value for the purposes of assessment learned counsel made reference to the case of Balbir Singh v. M/s. M. C. D., AIR 1985 SC 339 , This matter can be looked into in the assessment proceedings and we do not want to enter into this question. So far as section 174 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is concerned, it does not carry any weight Section 174 of the Adhiniyam defines the rental value. Section 174 indicates that buildings have been divided in two categories; first which are used by railway, hospitals and factories etc. So far as other category is concerned, no definite criteria has been laid down for the assessing authority, but a rebate of 25 percent is provided for self-occupied houses. The Act itself lays down criteria of the basis of which annual value is to be determined and as such it cannot be said that no guidelines have been laid down for the same and as such this plea raised obviously does not carry any weight and is to be rejected. It may further be noticed that the Administrator has laid down certain criteria for the determination of annual value for the residents of city of Lucknow. Oa behalf of the petitioner reference was made to the case of State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty, AIK. It may further be noticed that the Administrator has laid down certain criteria for the determination of annual value for the residents of city of Lucknow. Oa behalf of the petitioner reference was made to the case of State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty, AIK. 1969 SC 378 in which case section 4 of the Kerala Building Tax Act was struck down as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed :- "For determining the quantum of tax the sole test is the area of the floor of the building. It does not depend upon the purpose for which the building is used, the nature of the construction, the locality in which the building is situate, the economic rent which may be obtained from the building, the cost of building and other related circumstances which may appropriately be taken into consideration in any rational system of the taxation of building." While taking the above view, the court took into consideration the earlier decision given in the case of New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahemadabad, AIR 1967 SC 1801 in which case it was held that the levy of tax in exercise of the power under Entry 49, List, of the Seventh Schedule in respect of factory building in a municipal area based on floor area was illegal. In the said case rule under which tax was levied was restricted in respect of factory building of while in the Keral's case the building of any nature was covered by it. It is not necessary for us to enter into the question as to how standard rent is to be determined and as to what criteria should be followed. But in view of the fact that as the plinth area has been taken as basis for assessing the annual value, the same obviously is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot stand. Assessment order in respect of entire area has been issued but some residents have accepted while others have not accepted. In view of the fact that plinth area cannot be made the basis for deciding the annual value, obviously the matter can be looked into by the appellate authority and in case residents who have been waiting and. Assessment order in respect of entire area has been issued but some residents have accepted while others have not accepted. In view of the fact that plinth area cannot be made the basis for deciding the annual value, obviously the matter can be looked into by the appellate authority and in case residents who have been waiting and. have not filed writ petition and file appeal, there appears to be no reason why their appeals will not be entertained in view of pendency of writ petition and the appeals will not be rejected on the ground of limitation and the same will be heard and disposed of on merits. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, the principle on which assessment has been made, had also been challenged and reference to the case of Balbir Singh v. M/s. M. C. D. AIR 1985 SC 339 was made. But this is a matter which has to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority and it is not necessary for us to enter into all these questions. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case appeals are filed within a period of one month from the date of judgment, it shall be entertained and shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation and shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above including that the plinth area will not be taken into account for deciding the annual value. There will be no order as to costs.