ORDER Jha, J. -- 1. The following order of this Court shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1743 of 1993 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Katni v. Municipal Corporation, Katni. 2. In both the petitions common question of law is involved about the liability of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in respect of payment of property tax to the Municipal Corporation. 3. The Municipal Corporation has issued notice for recovery of property tax from the petitioners/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'Mandi Samiti') Khandwa and Katni. In both the petitions it is stated that the Mandi Samiti is not liable to pay the property tax. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to proviso to Section 9(3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and submitted that in view of the proviso properties of Mandi do not vest within the limits of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was further submitted that the Corporation has no power to impose the property tax over a property which is not within its limit. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation/respondents submitted that the proviso to Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam shall be read in respect of the particular section to which proviso is appended. Learned counsel submitted that the taxation being under an statute for taxation is to be construed strictly and the Mandi Samiti cannot be absolved itself from the liability of payment of property tax. Section 136 of the Act provides for exemption from payment of property tax. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 135 and 136 of the Act are independent in itself and the proviso to section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam cannot override the provision. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the normal function of proviso is to accept something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein but the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. Learned counsel further submitted that the proviso cannot be construed as excluding or adding something by implication. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Dwarka Prasad v, Dwarka Das AIR 1975 SC 1758 and submitted that on fair construction the principal provision is clear then the proviso cannot expand or limit the fair construction. Learned counsel further submitted that the proviso cannot be construed as excluding or adding something by implication. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Dwarka Prasad v, Dwarka Das AIR 1975 SC 1758 and submitted that on fair construction the principal provision is clear then the proviso cannot expand or limit the fair construction. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso must be limited to the subject matter of the enacting clause. Learned counsel referred to paras. 16 & 18 of the judgment. In para. 18 it is held that the proviso must be limited to the subject matter or the enacting clause. It is a settled rule of construction that proviso must prima-facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment. The words are dependant on the principal enacting words to which they are tagged as a proviso. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further referred to the judgment in the case of Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax AIR 1955 SC 765 and submitted that it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a particular provision of statute only embrances the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other. He also referred to the judgment in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax. Mysore. Travancore-Cochin and Corrg Banglore v. The Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd AIR 1959 SC 713 and submitted that proviso should be read in the light of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso cannot be expanded to be made applicable to special enactment under Section 135 of the Act. The property from exemption is provided under Section 136 of the Act. The proviso is limited for the purposes of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam and it will not affect the rights of the Corporation to recover progeny tax under the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. 8. For considering the arguments it is necessary to consider the import of relevant provision of sub-section (3) of Sec. 9. Sub Section (3) of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below :-- "9. 8. For considering the arguments it is necessary to consider the import of relevant provision of sub-section (3) of Sec. 9. Sub Section (3) of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below :-- "9. Acquisition of land for Board or market Committee -- (3) Nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959), and rules made there under in so far as they relate to diversion of land, revision of land revenue consequent on the change in the use of land from agriculture to any other purpose and other matters incidental thereto shall apply to land acquired by the market committee under sub-section (1) or acquired by transfer, purchase gift or otherwise and use for the purpose of establishment of a market yard or a sub-market yard: Provided that the premises used for market yard, sub-market yard or for the purpose of the Board shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or a Special Area Development Authority, as the case may be ' The Provisions of Section 135 and 136 of the Act are also reproduced below :-- "135. Imposition of property tax. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, as and from the financial year 1976-77, there shall be charged, levied and paid for each financial year a tax on the lands or buildings or both situate within the city at the rate specified in the table below :-- TABLE (i) Where the annual value exceeds 6 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 1800 but does not exceed Rs. 6,000. (ii) Where the annual value exceeds 8-1/3 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 6000 but does not exceed Rs. 12,000. (iii) Where the annual value exceeds 10 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 12,000 but does not exceed Rs. 18,000. (iv) Where the annual value exceeds 15 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 18,000 but does not exceed Rs. 24,000. (v) Where the annual value exceeds 20 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 24,000. 136. 12,000. (iii) Where the annual value exceeds 10 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 12,000 but does not exceed Rs. 18,000. (iv) Where the annual value exceeds 15 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 18,000 but does not exceed Rs. 24,000. (v) Where the annual value exceeds 20 per-centum of the annual value. Rs. 24,000. 136. Exemptions :-- The property tax levied under Section 135 shall not be leviable in respect of the following properties, namely :- (a) building and lands owned by or vesting in -- (i) the Union Government; (ii) the State Government; (iii) the Corporation; (b) buildings and lands the annual value of which does not exceed eighteen hundred rupees: Provided that if any such building or land is in the ownership of a person who owns any other building or land in the same city, the annual value of such building or land shall for the purposes of this clause, be deemed to be the aggregate annual value of all buid-lings or lands owned by him in the city; (c) buildings and lands or portions thereof used exclusively for educational purposes including schools, boarding house, hostels and libraries if such buildings and lands or portions thereof are either owned by the educational institutions concerned or have been placed at the disposal of such educational institutions without payment of any rent; (d) public parks and playgrounds which are open to the public and building and land attached thereto if the rent derived there from is exclusively spent for the administration of parks and playgrounds to which they are attached; (e) buildings and lands or portions thereof used exclusively for public worship or public charity such as mosques, temples, churches, dharmashalas, gurudwaras, hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, alms houses, drinking water fountains, infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals and public burial grounds, or other places for the disposal of the dead : Provided that the following buildings and lands or portions thereof shall not be deemed to be used exclusively for public worship or for public charity within the meaning of this section, namely :-- (i) building in, or lands on, which any trade or business is carried on unless the rent derived from such buildings or lands is applied exclusively to religious purposes or to public charitable institutions aforesaid; (ii) buildings or lands in respect of which rent is derived and such rent is not applied exclusively to religious purposes or public charitable institutions aforesaid; (f) buildings and lands owned by widows or minors or persons subject to physical disability or mental infirmity owing to which they are incapable of earning their livelihood, where the main source of maintenance of such widows or minors or persons is the rent derived from such buildings and lands: . Provided that such exemption shall relate only to the first twenty four hundred rupees of the annual value of such buildings and lands. " 9. From bare reading of Section 135 the power of the Municipal Corporation to impose property tax is on the lands or buildings situate within the city. 'City' is defined under Section 5(10) of the Act. The definition given under Section 5(10) of the Act is reproduced below :-- "5. Definitions -- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, -- (10) "City" means a larger urban area as the Governor may by public notification specify in accordance with the provisions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 7 of this Act." 10. Section 9(3) as it is read is apparently not connected with the proviso appended to it. Here in this case the insertion of the proviso is not strictly adhered to for its legitimate use and the portion worded as proviso appears to be wholly in substance of fresh enactment adding to and not merely accepting something out of or qualifying what goes before. In this respect to consider the true import of the proviso entire Chapter-III of the Adhiniyam is to be construed. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam relates to establishment of market committee or its incorporation. Section 8 relates to vesting of property of local authority in the market committee and Section 9 is with regard to acquisition of land for the Board or market committee and sub-section (3) of Sec. 9 relates to non-application of provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code in respect of diversion of land, revision of land revenue, consequential change in the use of land from agriculture to any other purpose and other matters incidental thereto shall apply to land acquired by the market committee under sub-sec. (1) or acquired by transfer, purchase or gift. Thus, from going through Sections 7, 8 and 9 it is apparent that the proviso is supplement to these provisions. By this proviso the property acquired for the Board or market committee by transfer, purchase, gift or otherwise for the purpose of establishment of market yard or sub-market yard shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation. By this proviso the property acquired for the Board or market committee by transfer, purchase, gift or otherwise for the purpose of establishment of market yard or sub-market yard shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation. On a true construction of this provision it is apparent that the intention of legislature, by inserting the proviso is to clarify that whatever lands are acquired will be beyond the local limits of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or Special Area Development Authority, as the case may be. It is true that the application of rule of proviso presents difficulty and when a proviso in a statute does not form part of section but is itself enacted as a separate section. The Apex Court while considering the proviso to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. in the case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya. AIR 1960 SC 1125 held that the proviso furnished by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has been construed as a proviso to Sections 24 to 26 and not to Sec. 27. 11. In the case of I. T. Commissioner, U.P. v. Jagannath Mahadeo Prasad. AIR 1969 SC 209 it is held that where the language used in the proviso is quite clear and no alternative view is possible, it is futile to go into the question whether the proviso operates as a substantive provision or only by way of an exception and the plain meaning must be adopted. From the plain meaning of proviso and considering the scope of Section 9 read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Adhiniyam provides for acquisition of property and use for market yard or sub-market yard shall be deemed to be out of limits from the Municipal Corporation. The plain meaning by the proviso and Sections 7 to 9 of the Adhiniyam is apparently clear that this proviso is made to exclude the property from the limits of the Municipal Corporation. 12. Section 135 of the Act provides that the Municipal Corporation will be entitled to recover property tax on the lands or buildings or both situate within the city. 12. Section 135 of the Act provides that the Municipal Corporation will be entitled to recover property tax on the lands or buildings or both situate within the city. From the definition of the word 'City' in Sec. 5(10) of the Act it is clear that the city means larger urban area and the Governor may by public notification specify in accordance with the provisions laid down in sub-section (2) of Sec. 7 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act relates to public notification in respect of area within the city. 13. From bare reading of this provision the Municipal Corporation is empowered to recover tax within its limits and it has no jurisdiction to recover tax beyond the limits of the city. The Corporation has no jurisdiction to recover the property tax in respect of the area which is beyond its jurisdiction. Article 265 of the Constitution of India prohibits imposition of tax without any authority of law. Unless the Municipal Corporation has an authority of law it cannot recover property tax. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act cannot be read in a limited sense but it is to be seen that the intention of legislature is to keep the area of market yard and market committee out of the limits of the Municipal Corporation. 14. From the aforesaid discussion, the Municipal Corporation has no right to levy or collect property tax from the petitioner/Mandi Samiti. In the result the petition succeeds and the notices of demand for property tax from the Mandi Samiti with effect from 21.7.1986 are quashed. The Municipal Corporation has power to recover tax prior to 2.1.1986 before insertion of proviso by the amendment in the Adhiniyam. There shall be no order as to costs.