JUDGMENT : N. Pandey, J.- This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India, Patna Branch, is for quashing the ORDER :of the Additional District Judge, Patna, dated 3.12.1987 (Annexure-5) in Appeal No. 211 of 1972 as also the ORDER :of the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, dated 28.6.1972 in Review Case No.6 of 1972 (annexure-3) whereby assessment of municipal tax was revised for the staff quarters of the Reserve Bank of India. 2. As would appear from the facts brought on record, the petitioner Bank has constructed certain quarters at Rajendra Nagar since the year 1972 within the municipal area of the Patna Municipal Corporation for its employees. On 13.1.1972, a notice under Section 149 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') (Annexure-1) was issued by the Assistant Administrator treating all the quarters as one holding but taxes were assessed and worked out on blockwise basis and accordingly, petitioner was required to pay Rs. 24,626.46 per quarters. 3. Being aggrieved with the ORDER :of the assessment, petitioner filed a petition under section 150 of the Act before the competent authority with a request that the assessment should have been made on the basis of the costs of construction treating all the staff quarters as one holding in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 130 of the Act, which requires that annual value of the holding has to be assessed on the basis of the actual cost of erection and not on the basis of letting value. 4. The grievance is that respondent no.2 while disposing of the review petition virtually changed the original ORDER :and directed for assessment of the tax on the basis of annual rental value treating all the Bank quarters as separate holdings. Petitioner, ultimately feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid ORDER :, filed Appeal No. 211 of 1972 before the 4th Additional District Judge, Patna, which was dismissed after hearing both the parties, by the JUDGMENT : dated 3.12.1987 (Annexure-5). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that respondent no.2 has failed to appreciate that staff quarters of the Bank are not intended for letting out on commercial basis in open market. Such quarters are only being allotted to the employees of the Bank on concessional rent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that respondent no.2 has failed to appreciate that staff quarters of the Bank are not intended for letting out on commercial basis in open market. Such quarters are only being allotted to the employees of the Bank on concessional rent. Therefore, the annual value of the holding should not be determined on the gross annual rental at which such holdings may reasonably be expected to be let out. Hence, it was proper for the authorities to apply the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 130 of the Act while making assessment of the taxes as it is done with regard to the Government staff quarters. It was next contended, apart from the aforesaid defects, the impugned decision of respondent no.2 is further vitiated since he has treated these quarters as separate holdings because a bare reference to the provisions of section 4(u) of the Act, would indicate that unless there is anything repugnant, in the subject, "holding" means land held under one title or agreement and surrounded by one set of boundaries. Since all the quarters are under one title surrounded by one set of boundaries, it was not proper for the authorities to treat them as separate holdings. 6. It was contended that apart from the aforesaid anomalies, respondent no.2 has further erred while changing the very basis of the assessment of the quarters from the 'cost of construction' to the 'rental value'. Because no review was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation against the previous decision whereby assessment was made on the basis of cost of construction. But unfortunately, while hearing the petition for review filed on behalf of the petitioners, the very basis of assessment was changed. He contended that the Additional District Judge also appreciated these anomalies but on a wrong presumption that the ORDER :of the Administrator was passed with the consent of the parties, rejected the appeal. In fact, such a finding of the Additional District Judge is completely erroneous and without any basis. 7. In the background of the facts stated above question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the respondent authority to treat all the quarters as separate holdings and the assessment on the basis of annual rental value and not on the cost of construction was justified. 7. In the background of the facts stated above question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the respondent authority to treat all the quarters as separate holdings and the assessment on the basis of annual rental value and not on the cost of construction was justified. There is no dispute that all the quarters are under one title surrounded by common boundaries. But the assessment of taxes has been done presently applying the provisions of sub-section (1) of sec. 130 of the Act which says that the annual value of the holding shall be deemed to be the gross rental on which the holding may reasonably be let out. The claim of the petitioner, as noticed above, is that the buildings have not been erected for the purpose of letting out, therefore, the authorities should have made assessment applying the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 130 of the Act, according to which, if the building is not intended for letting out and is being used for the residence of the owner, the annual value of such building would be ascertained on the basis of actual cost of erection. 8. Yet there is another defect in the ORDER :of the authorities whereby they have treated the staff quarters as separate holdings. Because, from a bare reference to the provisions of Sec. 4(u) of the Act, it would appear that a building under one title or agreement, surrounded by one set of boundary shall be treated as one holding. The explanation attached to the said sub-section further goes to the extent that even holdings separated by a road or other means of communication shall be deemed adjoining within the meaning of the first proviso. No counter affidavit has been filed to controvert the facts stated above nor this is the case of the respondents that all such quarters are under separate title of the owners and surrounded by different boundaries. Therefore, there cannot be any scope to treat these quarters as separate holding. 9. The other aspect with regard to jurisdiction of respondent no.2 to change the entire ORDER :of assessment also cannot be ignored. Therefore, there cannot be any scope to treat these quarters as separate holding. 9. The other aspect with regard to jurisdiction of respondent no.2 to change the entire ORDER :of assessment also cannot be ignored. It appears that no review was filed with respect to that part of the ORDER :whereby assessment was made treating all the quarters as one holding but by the ORDER :under review, a direction was issued for assessment on blockwise basis treating separate holding instead one holding as required under section 4(u) read with Sec. 130(2). Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned ORDER :cannot sustain. 10. Thus having regard to the statutory provisions, as noticed above, as also since the quarters have exclusively been erected for the use of staff of the Bank, surrounded by one common boundary, the respondents will have no option but to assess the taxes on the basis of cost of construction comprising of the holding. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned ORDER :s are quashed with a direction to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh ORDER :in terms of the observations made above. But until final ORDER :, the petitioner Bank shall pay tax as assessed by the Corporation which, however, shall be subject to adjustment in case of reduction of the amount of assessment at the time of final ORDER :.