D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides ( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in all the appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) ALL these appeals are filed challenging the judgment, dated 26-9-2003, passed by the court of 1 Additional Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada in C. M. A. Nos. 295, 332, 335 and 350 of 2003. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the cases are that the respondents in all the appeals are the owners of the buildings in Vijayawada city and they have been paying nominal rents. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (for short the Corporation ) proposed to enhance the property tax of their buildings. Accordingly, it issued special notices on different dates to the owners, as envisaged under Section 220 (2) of the Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act (for short the act ), which Act was adopted by the corporation. Aggrieved by the proposed amendment, the owners filed their objections, which were treated as revisions before the Commissioner. As per section 223 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act, the commissioner considering their objections, eventually passed orders on different dates on the revisions of the owners by slightly reducing the enhanced taxes. Not being satisfied with such reductions, the owners of the buildings filed Civil Miscellaneous appeals before the I Additional Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada. ( 5 ) IN the appeals, the court below held that the Corporation followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 214 to 225 of the Act and Rules 3 to 7 of the A. P. Municipalities (Assessment of Taxes) Rules, 1990, except the publication under section 218 (2) of the Act. It was further held that since the said irregularity can be cured under Section 684 of the Act, directed the corporation to give publication in A. P. Gazette and daily newspaper before issuing demand notice. The court further held that the Corporation is entitled to collect taxes only after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 218 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction with regard to compliance of Section 218 (2) of the Act, the Corporation filed these appeals. The court further held that the Corporation is entitled to collect taxes only after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 218 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction with regard to compliance of Section 218 (2) of the Act, the Corporation filed these appeals. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the Corporation contended that though publication as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 218 was not given, the entire procedure cannot be said to be vitiated, inasmuch as the special notices as contemplated under Section 220 (2) of the act have been issued to the owners of the property. He further contended that the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 218 of the Act with regard to publication of notice, when valuation of the property in any ward has been completed, in a. P. Gazette and local newspaper and by posting placards in conspicuous places, is only procedural and not mandatory. He further contended that it would be sufficient to send special notices under Section 220 (2) to all the parties, where there is increase in rateable value of any premises and the same need not necessarily be informed by way of publication under Section 218 (2) of the Act. He further submitted that in all other cases, under Section 264 of the Act, the property tax has to be paid by the owners of the buildings on their own without any notice and where there is default, notices will be issued under Section 266 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that since the respondents herein who are owners of the buildings in the Vijayawada city were served with special notices under Section 220 (2) of the Act, there is sufficient compliances of the provisions of the Act and there is no need to again resort to the procedure under section 218 (2) of the Act and sought for setting aside of the direction of the court below in this regard. ( 7 ) IN support of the above contentions, the learned Advocate General relied on a division Bench judgment of this court in himayatnagar Rate Payers Asso. v. Muni Corpn. Hyderabad and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal board v. Saigal and Bhagwandas. ( 7 ) IN support of the above contentions, the learned Advocate General relied on a division Bench judgment of this court in himayatnagar Rate Payers Asso. v. Muni Corpn. Hyderabad and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal board v. Saigal and Bhagwandas. ( 8 ) PER contra, Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, the counsel appearing for the owners/ respondents, contended that a bare perusal of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 218 indicates that the compliance of the procedure prescribed therein is mandatory in nature by virtue of the very language employed therein. In support of this contention, they relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in S. B. H. Co-op. Bank officers Welfare Association v. Govt. of a. P. 3, which was confirmed by the supreme Court with slight modification in commissioner v. Griha Yajamanula samakhya. ( 9 ) IN the background of the above contentions, the only point that falls for my consideration is whether the provision under section 218 of the Act with regard to publication is mandatory in nature and non- compliance of the said procedure vitiates the process of assessment and enhancement of the tax by the Corporation, though the other mandatory provisions in substance, have been complied with? ( 10 ) IN order to consider the above issue, it is pertinent to note the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 214 of the Act deals with the contents of assessment book. Section 218 of the Act deals with giving of public notice when valuation of property in any ward has been completed. Since the counsel for the respondents buttressed their argument on this Section, the same is extracted as under for ready reference: 218. Public notice to be given when valuation of property in any ward has been completed: (1) When the entries required by clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 214 have been completed, as far as practicable, in a ward assessment book, the commissioner shall give public notice thereof and of the place where the ward assessment book or copy of it, may be inspected. (2) Such public notice shall be , published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette and in the local daily newspapers and also by posting placards in conspicuous places through out the ward. (2) Such public notice shall be , published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette and in the local daily newspapers and also by posting placards in conspicuous places through out the ward. ( 11 ) FURTHER, Section 220 deals with giving of public announcement with regard to time for filing complaints against valuations. Subsection (2) of Section 220 deals with issuing of special notice where any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes or where there is increase in payment of taxes. The said sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act is extracted as under for ready reference:in every case in which any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes, or in which the ratable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issue of the public notice under Sub-section (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within fifteen days from the service of the special notice. ( 12 ) A bare perusal of the above provisions under Section 218 of the Act shows that when certain entries required under Section 214 of the Act have been completed, as far as practicable, the commissioner shall give public notice thereof indicating the place where the ward assessment book or copy is made available for inspection. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 218 of the Act contemplates that public notice shall be published in the A. P. Gazette and in the local daily newspaper and also posting placards in conspicuous places throughout the ward. From this provision, it is obvious that the steps that are going to be taken before making assessment of the valuation of the property shall be widely made known to the public. From this provision, it is obvious that the steps that are going to be taken before making assessment of the valuation of the property shall be widely made known to the public. ( 13 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 220 of the act further contemplates that where an assessment made to the premises is for the first time entered in the assessment book, making liable for payment of property tax; or in cases where the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall issue special written notice, after following the procedure contemplated under Section 218. And such special notice shall also indicate the nature of such entry to be made in the assessment book and further informing the aggrieved person that he can make a complaint against the same within the prescribed period. The provisions under sections 221, 222, 223 and 224 deal with the procedure regarding the method and manner to deal with such complaints. ( 14 ) FROM the above it is clear that the notice by way of publication under Sec. 218 of the Act is in order to enable the persons to inspect the ward assessment books when the valuation of property in any ward has been completed and further where any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property tax or in which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the commissioner shall issue special notice after the publication prescribed under section 218, to enable the aggrieved party to file complaints against the valuation of the property. ( 15 ) IN other words, the publication under section 218 is for inspection and the notice under Section 220 (2) is for the purpose of filing complaints before the Commissioner by the aggrieved persons owing to the increase of taxes. No doubt, the special notice under Section 220 (2) is only after the publication contemplated under Section 218 of the Act, but the purpose is only for inspection and not for filing complaints. ( 16 ) IN the present case, the owners after receiving the special notices with regard to enhancement of property tax, have availed their remedy by way of filing revisions and the Commissioner by following the procedure prescribed under Section 223 of the Act disposed of their complaints. ( 16 ) IN the present case, the owners after receiving the special notices with regard to enhancement of property tax, have availed their remedy by way of filing revisions and the Commissioner by following the procedure prescribed under Section 223 of the Act disposed of their complaints. Therefore, in my considered view, non- publication of the notice as contemplated under Section 218 of the Act did not cause any real prejudice to the owners of the property, since the purpose of publication under Section 218 of the Act is served by issuing special notices under sub-section (2) of Section 220. ( 17 ) FURTHER, a Division Bench of this court in Himayatnagar Rate Payers Association s case (cited 1 supra) while dealing with the provisions under Section 218 (2) of the Act held as under:"that takes us to the question as to whether the public notice issued under sec. 218 (2) read with Section 226 was valid. The contention was that although the public notice was published in the official gazette and in the local newspapers, it was not published by posting playcards in conspicuous places through each ward. We do not, however, find any substance in this contention. It is not denied that all the petitioners got individual special written notices issued under Section 220 (2 ). That apart, according to Section 684 of the Act, the Assessment on account of such omission or defect would not be invalidated. The duty to give notice has been in substance and effect complied with. " (emphasis supplied by me) ( 18 ) THE above Division Bench of this court while coming to the above conclusion got support from the earlier judgment of the supreme Court in Municipal Board, Sitapur case (cited 2 supra), wherein the facts reveal that the Municipal Board, Sitapur, levied water tax under Section 135 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 2 of 1916. The question that fell for consideration thereof was whether the provisions under Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the said Act were complied with or not. Here, it is pertinent to note that the provisions under the U. P. Municipalities act are analogues to the provisions under the present Act. The specific contention before the Supreme Court in the said case was that since the publication of the resolution directing the imposition of tax was not published, the imposition of tax was invalid. Here, it is pertinent to note that the provisions under the U. P. Municipalities act are analogues to the provisions under the present Act. The specific contention before the Supreme Court in the said case was that since the publication of the resolution directing the imposition of tax was not published, the imposition of tax was invalid. The High Court of Allahabad, from whose judgment the matter was carried to supreme Court, agreed with the said contention. But the Apex Court did not agree with the above decision of the High Court of allahabad and while allowing the appeal held at paragraph No. 4 as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . BUT all the procedural defects in the imposition of the tax are cured by section 135, sub-section (3), where, as in this case, the Municipal Board has the power to levy the tax and has passed the special resolution necessary for the imposition of the tax and the defects are not of a fundamental character. The procedural defects cannot be regarded as fundamental or as invalidating the imposition, if no substantial prejudice is caused thereby to the inhabitants of the municipality. " (emphasis supplied by me) ( 19 ) FROM the above it is clear that the apex Court was of the view that the procedural defects cannot be regarded as fatal, if no substantial prejudice is caused to the inhabitants. In the present case also, as discussed above, by mere non-publication of notice as contemplated under Section 218 of the Act, no prejudice has been caused to the owners, since admittedly after receipt of the special notice under Section 220 (2) of the act, they have filed their objections/ complaints and the same have been disposed of by the Commissioner by following the procedure prescribed under section 223 of the Act. ( 20 ) IT is also to be noted that Section 684 of the Act contemplates that informalities and errors in assessments, etc. , not be deemed to invalidate such assessment etc. It further contemplates that if the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder have, in substance and effect been complied with, the informalities will not render the assessment, distress, notice etc. as invalid or illegal. , not be deemed to invalidate such assessment etc. It further contemplates that if the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder have, in substance and effect been complied with, the informalities will not render the assessment, distress, notice etc. as invalid or illegal. In the present case, though the publication under Section 218 of the Act is not given, the owners of the premises were served with special notices under Section 220 (2) of the Act with regard to increase in the property tax and they have availed of remedy available under the Act by way of filing their objections. ( 21 ) SO, by not giving publication, as envisaged under Section 218 (2) of the Act, no special damage or prejudice has been caused to the owners of the buildings. When such is the case, the validating provisions under Section 684 of the Act cures the procedural defect committed in not publishing the notice as envisaged under section 218 of the Act. ( 22 ) WHEN such is the case, the other question that falls for consideration is whether the direction of the court below to comply with Section 218 (2) of the Act is sustainable or not? ( 23 ) IT is to be seen that the Division bench of this court in S. B. H. Co-op. Bank officers Welfare Association case (cited 3 supra) while summing up the conclusions at paragraph No. 25 (9) held that provisions of sections 214 to 225 of the Corporations Act shall be scrupulously followed. Before coming to such conclusion, the scope of section 684 of the Act had not fallen for consideration before the Division Bench. But, the earlier Division Bench of this Court in Himayatnagar Rate Payers Association case (cited 1 supra), while dealing with a situation of present nature, taking into account Section 684 of the Act, held that assessment on account of such omission or defect would not be invalidated. ( 24 ) IT is to be further seen that even the later Division Bench of this court in S. B. H. Co-op. Bank Officers Welfare Association s case (cited 3 supra) held at paragraph No. 22 that the aggrieved party can file objections and the provisions of the Act provide for hearing of the complaints and decision by the Commissioner. Bank Officers Welfare Association s case (cited 3 supra) held at paragraph No. 22 that the aggrieved party can file objections and the provisions of the Act provide for hearing of the complaints and decision by the Commissioner. In the present case, the assessees i. e. , the owners of the premises, filed their objections after receipt of special notice and they were disposed of by the competent authority i. e. , the Commissioner. The said paragraph of the above later division Bench judgment is extracted as under for ready reference:hence, what ever may be the determination on the basis of the plinth area, it would always be open to the assessee to show that the rateable value so determined does not represent the correct picture and that the actual letting value is less or would be less, or that the rateable value fixed by the Commissioner is higher than the fair rent already determined or determinable under the Rent Control act. If the assessee raised such questions it has to be decided by the commissioner taking all relevant facts, as are submitted by the assessee, into consideration and he cannot be allowed to say that because I have already fixed the plinth area rate, I will only stick to that and fix the rateable value accordingly. The provisions of the act itself provide for hearing of the complaints and decision by the commissioner. Section 218 of the corporations Act provides, as has been seen, that after entries have been made in respect of the respective matters in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sec. 214, the Commissioner is to give public notice and that complaints can be filed against the amount of rateable value entered in the ward assessment book. The complaints are to be heard and decided by the Commissioner. Such powers of the Commissioner could never be negatived under the rules. " ( 25 ) IN the above case, the Division Bench while eventually summing up the conclusions, held at paragraph No. 25 (9) that provisions of Sections 214 to 225 of the corporations Act shall be scrupulously followed. ( 26 ) IN this context, it is to be further seen that Sections 214 to 215 (sic. " ( 25 ) IN the above case, the Division Bench while eventually summing up the conclusions, held at paragraph No. 25 (9) that provisions of Sections 214 to 225 of the corporations Act shall be scrupulously followed. ( 26 ) IN this context, it is to be further seen that Sections 214 to 215 (sic. 225) of the Act deal with maintenance and entries in the assessment book, objections and final decision regarding assessment of property tax or rateable value of any premises to be made in the assessment book. In other words, the above said provisions deal with the procedure regarding the maintenance of the assessment book. No doubt, as already held by the Division Bench of this court (cited 3 supra), which was confirmed by the supreme Court in the decision (cited 4 supra), these provisions have to be scrupulously followed. ( 27 ) IN this context, a little more attention is required while reading Section 220 of the act. Sub-section (1) of Section 220 deals with the issuance of public notice for filing complaints against the rateable value entered in the ward assessment book and the receipt of complaints thereof. Subsection (2) of Section 220 deals with issuance of special notices to two categories viz. , (1) where the premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes and (2) where the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased. The respondents i. e. , the owners in the present cases fall under the second category. Sub-section (2) further postulates that for both the above said categories, "the commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issuance of the public notice under sub-section (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within fifteen days from the service of the special notice. ( 28 ) FROM the submission of the Standing counsel for the Corporation, it appears that similar complaints as contemplated under sections 221 to 224 were filed by some aggrieved persons in whose cases there was increase in tax and they were dealt with under Section 223 of the Act and reportedly the assessment became final and no litigation is pending before this court. However, it is a matter of verification. ( 29 ) FROM a reading of the two Division bench judgments of this court cited 1 and 3 supra, there appears to be some ostensible conflict insofar as the effect of non- compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 218 (2) of the Act i. e. , with regard to issuance of the public notice for inspection of ward assessment book where the valuation of property in any ward has been completed. ( 30 ) BUT, in my considered view, there is no real conflict or divergence in views. It cannot be said that Section 218 of the Act need not be followed at all and if such an interpretation is given, the very purpose cf the provision would be rendered otiose. In my considered view, the real meaning and object of Section 218 (2) of the Act is to be read and construed along with Section 220 of the Act, particularly with sub-section (2) of the said section. ( 31 ) AS already pointed out sub-sec. (2) specifically posits that the Commissioner shall as soon as conveniently may be after ththe issuance of the public notice, shall give special notice. From a plain reading of the language employed in sub-section (2), makes it clear that the issuance of the special notice is more significant and imperative for the above said two categories of assessees i. e. , where any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessment book or where there is increase in the already existing tax, specifying the nature of such entry in ward assessment book and for filing objections or complaints. ( 32 ) IN the present case, at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the only grievance is that the publication under section 218 (2) of the Act for inspection of ward assessment book after completion of valuation of property is not given and since it is not the case that they did not receive the special notices under sub-section (2) of section 220, they were put to sufference. ( 33 ) FURTHER Section 684 of the Act, envisages that informalities and errors in assessments, etc. , not to be deemed to invalidate such assessment etc. For ready reference, the said provision is extracted as under:"684. Informalities and errors in assessments, etc. , not to be deemed to invalidate such assessment, etc. : (1) Any informality, clerical error, omission or other defects in any assessment made or in any distress levied or in any notice, bill schedule, summons or other documents issued under this act, or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder, may at any time as far as possible, be rectified. (2) No such informality, clerical error, omission or other defect shall be deemed to render the assessment, distress, not ce, bill, schedule, summons or o her document invalid or illegal, if the provisions of this acts and of the rules and bye-laws made thereunder have in substance and effect been complied with; but any person who sustains any special damage by reason of any such informality, clerical error, omission or other defect shall be entitled to recover compensation for the same by suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. ( 34 ) FROM the above, it is very much clear that any informalities or omissions or other defects shall not be deemed to render the assessment invalid, provided the provisions of the Act, Rules and other bye-laws made therein have in substance and effect been complied with. It further postulates that if any special damage is done by such omission or error, the aggrieved party is entitled to recover the compensation for the same by filing the suit. ( 35 ) FURTHER sub-section (1) of Section 684 contemplates that, if there is any informality, clerical error etc. , the same may, at any time as far as possible, be rectified. ( 35 ) FURTHER sub-section (1) of Section 684 contemplates that, if there is any informality, clerical error etc. , the same may, at any time as far as possible, be rectified. From a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 684, it can be logically understood that while assessing the tax, if other basic provisions of the Act in substance and effect been complied with and by virtue of the so called defect, if no special damage is caused, the defect, which is made rectifiable as far as possible, need not necessarily be rectified. ( 36 ) COMING to the facts of the present case, the Corporation failed to publish the notice for inspection of assessment book, which is a mandatory procedure under sub- section (2) of Section 218 of the Act and it amounts to either informality or omission. But, admittedly, the special notice as envisaged under sub-sec. (2) of Section 22o with regard to inspection of assessment book and filing of objections, has been issued and the owners have filed their objections and the same were considered and disposed of by the Commissioner under section 223 of the Act. This indicates that the provisions of the Act have, in substance, been complied with and in such a case, the non-compliance of subjection (2) of sec. 218 of the Act, though is a defect, need not be attached with much significance, since no special damage is caused to the owners by the so called defect. Therefore, taking the cue from the expression used in sub-section (1) of Section 684 that "may at any time as far as possible, be rectified", the said defect can be ignored. ( 37 ) FURTHER, in my considered view and in the light of the above discussion, the provision under Section 218 (2) of the Act cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read along with the Sections 220 and 684 and also along with other relevant provisions under Sections 221 to 225 and 226 of the act. ( 38 ) IN effect, that is the law laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court and this court in the decisions cited supra. ( 38 ) IN effect, that is the law laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court and this court in the decisions cited supra. Therefore, it is essential to read and understand the guideline No. 9 laid down by the latter division Bench of this Court in the decision cited 3 supra, which was confirmed by the supreme Court, in the light of the earlier division Bench and Supreme Court judgments (cited 1 and 2 supra ). Therefore, if all the provisions and judgments referred to above are read together, the only irresistible conclusion that can be safely be arrived at is that notwithstanding the imperativeness of following the procedure under Sec. 218 (2) of the Act, any procedural defect, if, does not cause any substantial prejudice or special damage to the owners/respondents need not be attached with much significance, nor it is capable of vitiating the entire exercise. ( 39 ) IT is to be further noted, at the cost of repetition that when the special notice envisaged under sub-sec. (2) of Section 220 has been issued, the owners of the premises promptly filed their complaints and treating them as revisions, the competent authority i. e. , the Commissioner disposed of the same in accordance with the provisions under section 223 of the Act. This shows that the owners have yielded to the said procedure prescribed under second limb of subsection (2) of Section 220. The court below also has categorically recorded that the corporation has followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 214 to 225 of the act and other relevant rules. ( 40 ) THE court below also dealt with section 684 of the Act, and gave a finding that non-compliance of sub-section (2) of section 218 of the Act is a curable defect and accordingly directed the Corporation to comply with the said provisions. But, unfortunately while giving such direction, the court below lost sight of the effect of subsection (2) of Section 684 and basing only on the language used in sub-section (1), directed the Corporation to give publication as per Section 218 (2) of the Act. But, unfortunately while giving such direction, the court below lost sight of the effect of subsection (2) of Section 684 and basing only on the language used in sub-section (1), directed the Corporation to give publication as per Section 218 (2) of the Act. In the light of the judgments, referred to supra, and the discussion, since I already held that publication under Section 218 (2) of the Act is not necessary in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the direction of the court below in this regard is not sustainable and the same is set aside. ( 41 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. No costs.