JUDGMENT By the Court.—In all these writ petitions, common questions of law are involved therefore same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of factual matrix, we find it appropriate to give brief facts of all writ petitions separately since that will help in understanding the dispute and the manner in which respondents’ authorities have acted and given rise to this bunch of writ petitions. Writ Tax No. 544 of 2016 3. There are two petitioners Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Amar Singh. Petitioner-1 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal owns two storey building at plot No. 2118, situate at Mohalla Mohammad Mah Nai Basti, Shikohabad, District Firozabad. He also owns a small factory at plot No. 1461 at Sikohabad. Petitioner-2, Amar Singh owns a building at plot No. 1712 at Mohammad Mah, Sikohabad, District Firozabad where he is running a hotel called as ‘Mayur Hotel’. 4. Shikohabad has a Nagar Palika Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ‘NPP’) which is a ‘Municipality’ as defined under Section 2 (9) of The Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act, 1916’) read with Article 243-P (e) and 243-Q (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. Tax Assessment Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘TAO’) of NPP sent notice dated 28.3.2015 to petitioner-1 under Sections 140/158/168/173 of U.P. Act, 1916 informing that in respect of House No. 2118, for Financial Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.Y.’) 2012-13 to 2014-15 he is liable to pay house tax at Rs. 57,600/-, Rs. 69,120/- and Rs. 69,120/- respectively. Petitioner-1, if had any objection, may file the same within 15 days alongwith sanctioned map and copy of sale-deed. Further, petitioner-1 was required to deposit house tax of Rs. 69,120/- for F.Y. 2014-15 by 31.3.2015, and in respect to F.Ys., 2012-13 and 2013-14, within 15 days else would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Similarly in respect of plot No. 1461, petitioner-1 received notice dated 18.3.2015 demanding House Tax for three F.Ys. as under: Serial Number F.Y. Amount of House Tax 1 2012-13 Rs. 52,272/- 2 2013-14 Rs. 62,724/- 3 2014-15 Rs. 62,724/- 5. Petitioner-2 was also served a notice dated 21.5.2014 under Sections 140, 147, 148, 158, 168, 173 of U.P. Act, 1916 with the direction to pay house tax in respect of House No. 1712, Mayur Hotel, which is a commercial building, for F.Ys. 52,272/- 2 2013-14 Rs. 62,724/- 3 2014-15 Rs. 62,724/- 5. Petitioner-2 was also served a notice dated 21.5.2014 under Sections 140, 147, 148, 158, 168, 173 of U.P. Act, 1916 with the direction to pay house tax in respect of House No. 1712, Mayur Hotel, which is a commercial building, for F.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the tune of Rs. 2,59,200/-. Petitioner-2 filed objection dated 30.6.2014. Thereafter Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘EO’) passed order dated 24.7.2014 determining House Tax afresh, by treating open area as 1500 square foot and covered area as 6000 square foot, as under: Serial Number F.Y. Amount of House Tax 1 2012-13 Rs. 71,832/- 2 2013-14 Rs. 86,184/- 3 2014-15 Rs. 8,6184/- The aforesaid amount was required to be deposited within 15 days. 6. Petitioners submitted representations/objections dated 11.8.2014 and 3.9.2015 stating that the area taken by NPP for the purpose of computing House Tax has been wrongly shown as there was no survey of property in dispute and further amount of house tax has been arbitrarily demanded inasmuch as earlier house tax paid by petitioner-1 in respect of House No. 2118 was only Rs. 500/- per annum which now has been increased to Rs. 57,600/- and Rs. 69,120/- respectively. They also pointed out that up to F.Y. 2012-13, required competent authority of ‘NPP’ to inform the details and relevant material on the basis of whereof, area was determined and House Tax was computed. 7. Petitioner-1 in respect of House No. 2118, furnished copy of map of the building showing area of building as under: ¼v½ O;olkf;d Hkou dk fooj.k ¼Hkwry½ ¼c½ vkoklh; Hkou dk fooj.k LVksj 858-86 oxZQhV LVksj 321-00 oxZQhV Xkksnke 272-16 oxZQhV dejk 670-83 oxZQhV Ckjkenk 632-55 oxZQhV cjkenk 856-45 oxZQhV vkfQl 272-16 oxZQhV 8. Petitioner-2 also stated that the entire hotel is constructed only in 1875 square foot area and it has no open space. The open space is almost negligible but for the purpose of House Tax assessment, in an arbitrary manner, imaginary area has been taken into consideration. Petitioner-2 also stated that the entire hotel is constructed only in 1875 square foot area and it has no open space. The open space is almost negligible but for the purpose of House Tax assessment, in an arbitrary manner, imaginary area has been taken into consideration. E.O. submitted a report dated 6.1.2015 in respect of ‘Mayur Hotel’ of petitioner-2, informing that area of building is 1975.90 square foot which is being used for commercial purpose and this is a double storey building and adjoining land, measuring 1500 square foot is being used as parking area but the same was not disclosed by petitioner-2 in his objections/representations. Therefore, total area of building is 3,952 square foot and its carpet area comes to 3,162 square foot. House Tax and Water Tax assessment therefore in respect of the said building for F.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 is as under: Serial Number F.Y. Covered Area House Tax Water Tax 1 2012-13 1897 Square foot Rs. 22,754/- Rs. 22,764/- 2 2013-14 2,428 square foot Rs. 29,136/- Rs. 25,500/- 9. With regard to open area also, E.O. submitted assessment of House Tax and Water Tax as under: Serial Number F.Y. Open Area House Tax Water Tax 1 2012-13 1,500 square foot Rs. 1,356/- Rs. 1,356/- 2 2013-14 144 square foot Rs. 1,728/- Rs. 1,512/- 10. Since petitioners were not communicated anything, petitioner-1 filed Writ (Tax) No. 813 of 2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2015 directing E.O. to dispose of petitioner’s objection after giving him an opportunity of hearing and by a speaking order. 11. Pursuant thereto, E.O. passed order dated 21.11.2015 informing that assessments have been revised in the light of amendment of Section 140 by U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act, 2011, substituting Section 140 of U.P. Act, 1916. The assessment made as communicated by letter dated 7.8.2015 by treating area of building as 4000 square foot. However, the said assessment was revised in the light of lay out plan and map submitted by petitioner-1, taking non-residential area as 2036.03 square foot and residential area as 2048.28 square foot. House tax for F.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-2016 therefore computed to Rs. 30,802/-; 36,954/-; 36,954/- and 36,954/- respectively. 12. However, the said assessment was revised in the light of lay out plan and map submitted by petitioner-1, taking non-residential area as 2036.03 square foot and residential area as 2048.28 square foot. House tax for F.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-2016 therefore computed to Rs. 30,802/-; 36,954/-; 36,954/- and 36,954/- respectively. 12. Petitioner-1 again protested by letter dated 1.12.2015 stating that various submissions he made during oral hearing on 3.9.2015 have been omitted and ignored and arbitrary revised assessment has been made which is patently incorrect. He submitted that there was no provision of applying multiplier of twelve and further, monthly rent assumed is also imaginary and conjectural. A detailed objection was filed alleging that officials of ‘NPP’ are making frivolous, fictional and arbitrary excessive assessments just to harass residents of Shikohabad and the excessive assessment are also without authority of law, hence they should refrain from such illegal activities. Representation was made by petitioner-1 dated 11.4.2016 to Collector, Firozabad and thereafter present writ petition has been filed challenging impugned assessment of Property Tax on the ground that it is patently illegal and not consistent with Section 140 of U.P. Act, 1916, therefore said assessments be quashed and amount already recovered by coercive method be refunded. Writ Tax No. 582 of 2016 13. Here petitioner Pankaj Agarwal owns House No. 75 situate at Mohalla, Padav, Shikohabad, District Firozabad. ‘NPP’ required petitioner and several others to deposit self assessed House Tax, by applying multiplier of twelve where against several objections were filed. The District Magistrate constituted a Committee, consisting of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Reveue), E.O./City Magistrate, Firozabad and General Manager District Industries Centre (Firozabad) who submitted report that Nagar Palika Parisad, Firozabad’s Self Assessment Scheme has been implemented w.e.f 1.4.2013 and at Shikohabad, it has been implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2012, therefore, concerned ‘NPP’ should proceed to recover House Tax for the period before enforcement of Self Assessment Scheme, as per earlier provisions, and after enforcement of scheme, according to the said scheme and disposed of objections accordingly. 14. Petitioner was required to deposit House Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,88,808/- which was subsequently revised Rs. 1,85,520/-. Recovery certificate was also issued. Petitioner in order to avoid complications due to coercive methods, deposited Rs. 90,000/- vide receipt dated 29.11.2014 and Rs. 95,525/- vide receipt dated 9.12.2014. 14. Petitioner was required to deposit House Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,88,808/- which was subsequently revised Rs. 1,85,520/-. Recovery certificate was also issued. Petitioner in order to avoid complications due to coercive methods, deposited Rs. 90,000/- vide receipt dated 29.11.2014 and Rs. 95,525/- vide receipt dated 9.12.2014. Simultaneously he challenged the said assessment and demand, in Writ (Tax) No. 515 of 2014. It was disposed of on 8.9.2014 with the following order : “The Committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Firozabad has submitted a report on 23 July 2014 (Annexure 5). In the concluding part of its report, the Committee has stated that it could hear objections if any person has a grievance or objection in connection therewith. The petitioner has already submitted objections before that Committee. Hence, at this stage, it is not necessary or appropriate for this Court to express any opinion or to entertain these proceedings. It would be open to the petitioner to request the Committee to hold recovery action in abeyance until the objections are duly considered and disposed of. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 15. Thereafter, pursuant to the said judgment dated 8.9.2014, E.O. vide order dated 10.12.2014 furnished details of assessment of F.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 to petitioner as under: Sr. No. Particulars F.Y. 2012-13 F.Y. 2013-14 (A) Total area of land 5509 square foot -do- (B) Open area of land 967   -do- " (C) Construction on the ground floor and first floor 5766   " " (D) Assessable constructed area 5735   " " (E) Annual assessment on constructed area Rs. 55,056/- " (F) Annual assessment on open area Rs. 1,164/- (G) House Tax on constructed area Rs. 41,292/- Rs. 52,848/- (H) Water Tax Rs. 41,292/- Rs. 46,248/- (I) House Tax on open area Rs. 876/- Rs. 1,116/- (J) Water Tax on open area Rs. 876/- Rs. 972/- (K) Total House Tax and Water Tax Rs. 84,336/- Rs. 1,01,184/- 16. Petitioner filed Writ (Tax) No. 690 of 2014 challenging order dated 10.11.2014 passed by E.O. On the ground of alternative remedy of appeal the writ petition was dismissed on 25.11.2014. The petitioner then filed appeal which was allowed by District Magistrate, Firozabad vide order dated 16.2.2015. 972/- (K) Total House Tax and Water Tax Rs. 84,336/- Rs. 1,01,184/- 16. Petitioner filed Writ (Tax) No. 690 of 2014 challenging order dated 10.11.2014 passed by E.O. On the ground of alternative remedy of appeal the writ petition was dismissed on 25.11.2014. The petitioner then filed appeal which was allowed by District Magistrate, Firozabad vide order dated 16.2.2015. Appellate Authority found that order dated 10.11.2014 was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner, hence appeal was partly allowed and matter was remanded to E.O. to pass appropriate order after hearing petitioner. 17. Thereafter, petitioner filed a detailed objection dated 2.3.2015 before E.O. who communicated a parawise reply to petitioner’s objection vide letter dated 8.4.2016 affirming its earlier demand raised vide order dated 10.11.2014. Thereafter, for F.Y. 2015-16, vide notice dated 28.4.2016 demanding House Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,11,392/- and Water Tax to Rs. 97,864/- was raised. It was issued under Section 168 and 173 of U.P. Act, 1916 and petitioner was required to pay the said amount within 15 days. Writ Tax No. No. 624 of 2016 18. For the year 2012-13 ‘TAO’ vide notice dated 15.2.2014, under Section 140, 147 and 148, required petitioner Smt. Shashi Tikmani to pay House Tax, Water Tax and Property Tax of Rs. 82,932/- and penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. Alongwith requisite documents petitioner filed representation dated 3.3.2014 disclosing total area of building as 2617 square foot, carpet area 2094 square foot (80% of total area), monthly rent at Rs. 2,094/- and annual value at Rs. 25,128/-. Thus House Tax for 2012 -13 comes to Rs. 18,852/- and the same amount of Water Tax. Similarly for F.Y. 2013-14, House Tax comes to Rs. 24,120/- and Water Tax at Rs. 21,108/-. It was submitted that any higher assessment is illegal. E.O. vide letter dated 12.3.2014 stated that demand and assessment made, already communicated is correct and no reconsideration is required. However amount already deposited by petitioner was adjusted and balance amount was required to be paid. 19. Petitioner then filed another objection dated 19.3.2014 before E.O. A press notice was published in daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 26.4.2014 wherein petitioner was required to deposit assessed amount as mentioned in earlier demand notice i.e. Rs. 67,832/- after adjusting Rs. 18,000/- deposited by petitioner. She filed Writ (Tax) No. 310 of 2014 which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. 67,832/- after adjusting Rs. 18,000/- deposited by petitioner. She filed Writ (Tax) No. 310 of 2014 which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. Petitioner preferred appeal before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad under Section 160 of U.P. Act, 1916 which has been decided vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2016; after setting aside the assessment and demand raised by ‘NPP’ on the ground that application of multiplier of twelve was patently illegal since multiplier was to be fixed by Rule and since no Rule was framed therefore ‘NPP’ itself could not have applied multiplier of twelve. After declaring assessment illegal Appellate Authority directed ‘NPP’ to make fresh assessment of property tax in accordance with relevant statutory provisions. 20. Petitioner communicated the said judgment to E.O. and requested that the excess amount realized from petitioner, in respect of F.Y. 2012-13 to 2014-15 should be refunded or be adjusted against property tax payable for F.Y. 2015-16. E.O. communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 4.3.2016 that as per agreement dated 16.8.2012, executed by petitioner with Bank of India, with respect to disputed property No. 2864, Mohalla Mohd. Mah. total area is 2617 square foot. If petitioner has any objection in regard to aforesaid area, may file the same. It was also informed that demand of refund alongwith interest was not correct. Petitioner was further required to pay Rs. 24,720/- towards House Tax and Rs. 21,408/- towards Water Tax for F.Y. 2015-16. 21. Petitioner again demanded, vide letter dated 9.3.2016, that penalty of Rs. 15,000/- has been declared illegal by Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad vide judgment dated 8.2.2016 and assessment of property tax has also been illegal, therefore, excess amount realized by E.O. should be refunded. E.O. did not pass any order as directed by Appellate Authority and instead, communicated a minor correction dated 20.6.2016 informing that for the year 2015-16, House Tax amount should be read as Rs. 24,120/- instead of Rs. 24,720/- and Water Tax as Rs. 21,108/- instead of Rs. 21,408/- and the total amount payable for year 2015-16 is Rs. 45,228/-. This demand has been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition and application of multiplier of twelve has also been challenged on the ground that same are illegal and without jurisdiction. Writ Tax No. 625 of 2016 22. 24,720/- and Water Tax as Rs. 21,108/- instead of Rs. 21,408/- and the total amount payable for year 2015-16 is Rs. 45,228/-. This demand has been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition and application of multiplier of twelve has also been challenged on the ground that same are illegal and without jurisdiction. Writ Tax No. 625 of 2016 22. Petitioner Gopal Jain is owner of House No. 21, Mohalla Bara Bazar, Shikohabad, District Firozabad which is let out to State Bank of India. For F.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14, ‘NPP’ demanded property tax of Rs. 1,85,888/-. Petitioner protested but E.O. advised to pay entire amount and in the meantime he would seek clarification with regard to multiplier from Government. Petitioner thus deposited aforesaid amount vide receipt dated 11.6.2014. Petitioner, pursuant to report submitted by Committee constituted by District Magistrate, Firozabad, made representation dated 23.1.2015 to review, assessment by excluding multiplier of twelve, and refund the amount paid in excess by petitioner. ‘TAO’ on the contrary, vide notice dated 18.5.2015, issued under Section 168/173 of U.P. Act, 1916 informed petitioner that it has to pay property tax for F.Y. 2014-15 at Rs. 1,08,864/- and same amount for F.Y. 2015-16. Petitioner was required to pay thus total sum of Rs. 2,17,728/- within 15 days. Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,08,864/- vide receipt dated 8.6.2015 whereupon ‘TAO’ issued demand notice dated 20.7.2016 for Rs. 1,08,864/- for F.Y. 2015-16. Since no valid assessment has been made by excluding multiplier of twelve, and arbitrarily assessed amount was compelled to be deposited, the same has been challenged in this writ petition. Writ Tax No. 626 of 2016 23. Petitioner, Satyendra Kumar Jain owns property No. 1630-1631, Mohalla Rukunpur, Mainpuri Road, Shikohabad, District Firozabad. The said property is used for running a cold storage. Initially, for F.Y. 2013-14, ‘NPP’ demanded property tax of Rs. 4,560/- it was paid on 3.12.2013. NPP thereafter enhanced above assessment and demanded Rs. 77,172/- for F.Y. 2013-14. The aforesaid assessment was made taking carpet area as 2745 square foot (constructed) and 7000 square foot as open. On the constructed area, House Tax was computed at Rs. 31,622/- and Water Tax at Rs. 27,670/-. On the open land, House Tax was computed as Rs. 12,096/- and Water Tax as Rs. 10,584/-. Thus, total house tax demanded was Rs. 43,718/- and water tax Rs. 38,254/-. On the constructed area, House Tax was computed at Rs. 31,622/- and Water Tax at Rs. 27,670/-. On the open land, House Tax was computed as Rs. 12,096/- and Water Tax as Rs. 10,584/-. Thus, total house tax demanded was Rs. 43,718/- and water tax Rs. 38,254/-. Petitioner then made representation dated 23.1.2015 stating that computation of property tax by applying multiplier of twelve was illegal but without looking to the said objection, ‘NPP’ is proceeding with the demand of property tax for F.Y. 2015-16 at Rs. 43,718/- (House Tax) and Rs. 38,254/- (Water Tax). 24. NPP has filed counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit in leading Writ (Tax) No. 544 of 2016. Learned counsel appearing for NPP requested that aforesaid affidavit be read in all other writ petitions since issues are common and on this request learned counsel appearing in various writ petitions had no objection, hence we agreed to read the said counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit for the purpose of all the writ petitions. 25. Affidavit has been sworn by Ninnumal Chaudhary, EO, NPP, Shikohabad. It refers to various provisions of U.P. Act, 1916 and in particular Sections 128, 129, 130A and 140, Principal Secretary U.P. Government issued an order dated 18.3.2011 addressed to all Commissioners, Collectors, Directors and Local Bodies, informing amendments made in U.P. Act, 1916 vide Amendment Act, 2011 and required concerned authorities to comply the amended provisions strictly. Annual value as per Section 140 (amended) is to be determined by computing monthly income on certain buildings of land and multiplying the same by twelve. Section 140 (1) (a) provides for a proportion not exceeding five percent, to be fixed by Rule, made in this behalf, of the sum obtained by adding estimated present cost of erecting building to estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto; and proportion of five percent was provided subject to one fixed by rules. Since no rules were framed by State, Taxes were being levied on the basis of proportion of five percent and no issue on this aspect was raised by any one before filing these writ petitions. The same provision and methodology is continuing under the amended provision by applying multiplier of twelve or as fixed by State Government. In other words, in absence of any rules to be specified, twelve multiplier is to be applied. The same provision and methodology is continuing under the amended provision by applying multiplier of twelve or as fixed by State Government. In other words, in absence of any rules to be specified, twelve multiplier is to be applied. The petitioners in fact have gained from assessment made by respondents as per Amended Act, 2011 and if they continue under the old provisions they would have to cough up more amount i.e. almost five times than the one which was demanded under Amended Act, 2011. An illustration in this regard has been given in para-12 as under : “That according to the capital cost of building-cum-land measuring 20.59 Sq. meters executed as late as on 15.4.2015, has been shown at Rs. 20,39,400/- and if this is taken at the annual value as it includes cost of construction as well as the land going by the old provision of Section 140 (1) (a), the annual value would come to Rs. 20,39,400 x 5% = 1,01,970/-, on that Annual Value would be Rs. 1,01,970/-. On this the taxes would as under: House Tax 10,970 x 8% Rs. 8,158.00 Water Tax 10,970 x 7% Rs. 7,138.00 Total Rs. 15,296.00 On calculation according to the latest amendment, annual assessment value would be like this: House Tax 2,131 x 8% 170 x 12 Rs. 2,040/- Water Tax 2,131 x 7% 149 x 12 Rs. 1,788/- Total Rs. 3,828/- The above example would show that even multiplier of 12 would result in less of property Tax than under the old arrangement.” 26. In absence of any other rate fixed by State Government, multiplier of twelve as provided by Amendment Act, 2011 has to be applied alongwith old provisions where it was 5%. Petitioners earlier also filed writ petitions but they were dismissed and no relief was granted. The Committee constituted by Collector was not a valid Committee. NPP is acting strictly according to the directions given by Principal Secretary in the letter dated 18.3.2011. The multiplier of twelve is being applied since State Government has not fixed any other multiplier and this application of multiplier of twelve is within competence of NPP. 27. The supplementary counter-affidavit has been sworn by Mahadeo Singh, TAO stating that he has come to join NPP, Shikohabad on his transfer vide order dated 17.11.2012. The multiplier of twelve is being applied since State Government has not fixed any other multiplier and this application of multiplier of twelve is within competence of NPP. 27. The supplementary counter-affidavit has been sworn by Mahadeo Singh, TAO stating that he has come to join NPP, Shikohabad on his transfer vide order dated 17.11.2012. During the working period of erstwhile EO, Nand Lal (now retired), the resolution of NPP and adoption of Self-Assessment Tax Scheme with proposed rate was published in Newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 13.10.2012. The petitioners and others were given option to file objection if any. A large number of objections were received which were considered by Board in a meeting dated 31.10.2012 and rates were finalized. Pursuant to resolution dated 31.10.2012, giving final shape to the rates, a format under Self-Assessment Tax Scheme was promulgated, providing multiplier of twelve for computing House Tax and Water Tax. A photocopy of format under Self-Assessment Tax Scheme is filed alongwith supplementary counter-affidavit. The action taken by ‘NPP’ is consistent with Principal Secretary’s letter dated 18.3.2011 and decision regarding applicability of multiplier of twelve was finalized by the Board. It was circulated by the then EO to all residents of Shikohabad, After taking charge by Mahadeo Singh, new EO, he sent a letter dated 26.7.2014 to Director, Local Bodies, seeking clarification about multiplier but no reply has been received. A similar letter was also forwarded to State Government on 27.8.2015 but reply is still awaited. 28. Petitioners have also filed a rejoinder-affidavit sworn on 21.8.2016 reiterating basically what they have pleaded in the writ petitions, therefore, we are not repeating the same and would refer whenever it may be necessary during the course of discussion. 29. The basic issue is, manner and procedure, necessary for assessing House Tax and Water Tax whether followed by NPP or not. 30. Section 128 has been substituted by Amendment Act, 2011. It details various taxes imposable by a Municipality. For our purposes, Section 128 (1) (i) (x), as it was before Amendment Act, 2011 is reproduced as under : “(1) Subject to any general rules or special order of the State Government in this behalf, the taxes which a Municipality may impose in the whole or part of a municipality are,- (i) a tax on the annual value of building or lands or of both; ... (x) a water-tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both;” 31. After amendment of Section 128, now the relevant clauses for the purpose of House Tax and Water Tax, are contained in Section (1) (i) and (ii), which read as under: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, a Municipality shall impose the following taxes, namely : (i) a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or both. (ii) a water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or both;” 32. Sub-Section (3) of Section 128 as amended provides that Municipal Tax shall be assessed/levied in accordance with provisions of U.P. Act, 1916 and Rules and bye laws framed thereunder. It reads as under : “(3) The municipal taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder.” 33. Section 128A relates to Tax on transfer of immovable property, hence we do not find the same relevant for the dispute in present writ petitions. Section 129, however, imposes certain restrictions with regard to water tax and reads as under: “129. Restriction on the imposition of water-tax—The imposition of a tax under clause (ii) of sub-section (1), Section 128 shall be subject to the restriction that the tax shall not be imposed,- “(i) on land exclusively used for agricultural purposes unless water is supplied by the Municipality for such purpose; or (ii) on a plot of land or building the annual value whereof, does not exceed rupees three hundred and sixty, and to which no water is supplied by the Municipality; or (iii) on any plot or building no part of which is within the radius prescribed for the municipality from the nearest stand-pipe or other water works whereat water is made available to the public by the Municipality. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,- (a) “building” shall include the compound, if any, thereof, and where there are several buildings in a common compound, all such buildings and the common compound; (b) “a plot of land” means any piece of land held by a single occupier, or held in common by several co-occupiers whereof no one portion is entirely separated from other portion by the land of another occupier or of other co-occupier or by public property. 34. 34. Section 129-A has been inserted by Amendment Act, 2011 specifying certain exceptions from levy of tax on annual value of buildings or lands or both, and, reads as under : “129A. Levy of tax on annual value of buildings or lands or both.—The tax on annual value of buildings or lands or both shall be levied in respect of all buildings and lands situated in the municipal limit except,- (a) buildings and lands solely used for purposes connected with the disposal of the dead; (b) buildings and lands or portions thereof solely occupied and used for public worship or for the charitable purposes, fields, farms and gardens of Government aided institutions of research and development, play grounds of Government aided or unaided, recognized educational institutions or sports stadium; (c) buildings solely used as schools and intermediate colleges, whether aided by the State Government or not; (d) ancient monuments as defined in the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, subject to any direction of the State Government in respect of any such monument; (e) buildings and land vested in the Union of India, except where provisions of clause (2) of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, apply; (f) any owner occupied residential building constructed on a plot of land measuring thirty square metres or having a carpet area upto fifteen square metres, provided that the owner thereof does not own any other building in the municipal limit; and (g) residential buildings occupied by the owner of the building which is located in such area which has been included in the limit of municipal council, within five years or the facilities or roads, drinking water and street light provided in the area, whichever is earlier.” 35. Sections 140 to 149 provide and deal with assessment and levy of tax on annual value of buildings or land or both. Section 140 talks of ‘annual value’ and reads as under: “140. Definition of annual value.—(1) “Annual Value” means— (a) In the case of railway stations, colleges, schools, hotels, factories, commercial buildings and other non-residential buildings, twelve times the value arrived at on multiplying with multiplier to be fixed by rules in the monthly rate of rent per square foot of residential buildings fixed under clause (b) with the covered area of the buildings or open area of the land or both, as the case may be. (b) In the case of a building or land not falling within the provisions of clause (a), twelve times the value arrived at on multiplying the carpet area of the building, or the area of the land, by the applicable minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot of the carpet area in the case of building or the applicable minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot of the area in the case of land, as the case may be, and for this purpose the minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot shall be such as may be fixed once in every two years by the executive officer of the Municipality on the basis of the location of the building or the land, nature of the construction of the building, the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the current minimum rate of rent in the area for such building or land and such other factors, and in such manner, as may be prescribed: Provided that where the annual value of any building would, by reason of exceptional circumstances, in the opinion of the Municipality, be excessive if calculated in the aforesaid manner, the Municipality may fix the annual value at any less amount which appears to it equitable. Explanation I.—For the purpose of calculation of annual value the carpet area shall be calculated as under: (i) Rooms-full measurement of internal dimension; (ii) Covered Verandah-full measurement of internal dimension; (iii) Balcony, Corridor, Kitchen and Store-50 per cent measurement of internal dimension; (iv) Garage-one-fourth measurement of internal dimension; (v) Area covered by bathroom, latrines, portico and staircase shall not form part of the carpet area. Explanation II.—The standard rent, the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent of a building for the purposes of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 shall not be taken into account while calculating the annual value of the building. Explanation II.—The standard rent, the agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent of a building for the purposes of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 shall not be taken into account while calculating the annual value of the building. (2) Where the Municipality so resolves, the annual value for the purpose of assessment of property taxes shall- (a) in the case of land and owner-occupied residential building which is not more than ten years old, be deemed to be 25 per cent less and if it is more than ten years but not more than twenty years old, be deemed to be 32.5 percent less, and if it is more than twenty years old, be deemed to be 40 per cent less than the annual value determined under clause (b) of sub-section (1); and (b) in the case of residential building let on rent, which is not more than ten year old, be deemed to be 25 per cent more and if it is more than ten years but not more than twenty years old, be deemed to be 12.5 per cent more than the annual value determined under clause (b) of sub-section (1),l and if it is more than twenty years old, be deemed to be equal to the annual value determined under clause (b) of sub-section (1). 36. A perusal of Section 140 which is the provision up for serious contentions in these writ petitions, and has real concern with the issues raised in these writ petitions, shows that buildings in municipal area are divided into two distinct categories: (i) Those used as railway stations, hotels, colleges, schools, hospitals, factories, commercial buildings and other non-residential buildings. (ii) Those not used as such i.e. one not covered by Section 140 (1) (a). 37. The buildings, therefore, described in Section 140 (1) (a), can safely be termed as ‘public buildings’, ‘commercial buildings’, ‘industrial buildings’ or ‘non-residential buildings’. Similarly those covered by Section 140 (1) (b), we may safely term the same as ‘residential buildings’. In our further discussion we will refer same accordingly. 38. Now method for determining ‘annual value’ of first category of buildings i.e. non-residential is as follows: 39. The aforesaid value has to be multiplied by a multiplier as fixed by Rules. Whatever, value would be arrived at, would be further multiplied by twelve and that will be ‘annual value’. In our further discussion we will refer same accordingly. 38. Now method for determining ‘annual value’ of first category of buildings i.e. non-residential is as follows: 39. The aforesaid value has to be multiplied by a multiplier as fixed by Rules. Whatever, value would be arrived at, would be further multiplied by twelve and that will be ‘annual value’. 40. In respect of ‘residential buildings’ or ‘land’ for determining annual value firstly monthly rent has to be seen i.e. ..... (a) Minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot of carpet area, or; (b) Applicable minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot of the area in the case of land. 41. This minimum monthly rate of rent has to be fixed by EO of Municipality once in every two years, on the basis of location of buildings or land, nature of construction of the building, circle rate fixed by Collector for the purpose of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and current minimum rate of rent of such area or such other factors in such manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, to determine minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot, manner and factors including certain aspect referred in Section 140 (1) (b), as prescribed, will be taken into consideration by EO of Municipality to determine minimum monthly rate of rent. 42. Now, carpet area of the building or area of the land shall be multiplied by minimum monthly rate of rent of carpet area of the building or area in the case of land and whatever value comes, it is twelve times of such value which is ‘annual value’. 43. In other words, methodology is as under: (a) EO of Municipality shall fix minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot of carpet area in the area of building or; (b) Minimum monthly rate of rent per square foot area in the case of land. 44. For such fixation, he shall follow the manner as prescribed in Rules and take into consideration as under : (i) Location of building or land; (ii) Nature of construction of building.; (iii) Circle rate fixed by Collector; (iv) Current minimum rate of rent in the area for such building or land; (v) Such other factors as may be prescribed. 45. For such fixation, he shall follow the manner as prescribed in Rules and take into consideration as under : (i) Location of building or land; (ii) Nature of construction of building.; (iii) Circle rate fixed by Collector; (iv) Current minimum rate of rent in the area for such building or land; (v) Such other factors as may be prescribed. 45. Thereafter, this minimum monthly rate of rent shall be multiplied by carpet area of building or the area of land as the case may be and then whatever value comes, it shall again be multiplied by twelve. That would give annual value. 46. Then explanation-I provides certain guidelines which have to be followed as an obligation by authority concerned in calculation of carpet area : (i) For rooms and covered Verandah its full measurement of internal dimension; (ii) For Balcony, Corridor, Kitchen and Store it is 50 percent of internal dimension; (iii) In the case of Garage, one-fourth of the internal dimension i.e. only 25 percent of the actual dimension; (iv) Bathrooms, latrines, portico and staircase shall not form part of the carpet area. 47. Explanation-II states that agreed rent or standard rent etc. under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 shall not be any standard for calculating annual value of building. 48. Section 140 sub-section (2) provides that Municipality may resolve to assess differently certain buildings occupied by owners and period of construction. If building is not more than 10 years old, ‘annual value’ may be determined 25 percent less and if it is more than 10 years old but less than 20 years old, relaxation in annual value may be 32.5 percent and if building is more than 20 years old, relaxation may be up to 40 percent. In respect of the buildings which are let on rent, up to 10 years old building, relaxation is same i.e. 25 percent but in other cases it is 12.5 percent and equal to ‘annual value’ as the case may be. 49. Record shows that after amendment of Section 140 by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011 the EO, NPP got a public notice published in daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ a press note dated 12.10.2012/13.10.2012. 50. Section 140 requires determination of minimum monthly rate of rent shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. 49. Record shows that after amendment of Section 140 by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011 the EO, NPP got a public notice published in daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ a press note dated 12.10.2012/13.10.2012. 50. Section 140 requires determination of minimum monthly rate of rent shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. It is nobody’s case that any Rule in respect of such determination were framed by Rule Framing Authority. Hence there was no manner prescribed. 51. The word ‘prescribed’ has been defined in Section 2 (17) (i) reads as under : “[(17) (i) “Prescribed” means prescribed by or under this Act or rules made thereunder or by or under any other enactment.” 52. The ‘prescribed’ therefore must be either under the Act or by the Rules or under any other enactment. 53. Learned counsel for NPP did not dispute that manner prescribed, in the case in hand, is not covered by any provisions under Act, 1916 and, therefore, it should have come by way of any Rule but even Rules were not framed under U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1959’). 54. For the purpose of determination of annual value U.P. Municipal Corporation (Property Taxes) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2000’) were framed but we are informed that under U.P. Act, 1916 no such Rules have been framed. Therefore other factors and manner as contemplated by Section 140 sub-section (1) is still unprescribed. 55. Section 141 has also been substituted U.P. Act No. 8, 2011 and the substituted provisions reads as under : “141. Preparation of assessment list.—The Municipality or the Executive Officer authorized by it in this behalf, shall cause areawise rental rates and an assessment list in the municipal area or part thereof to be prepared from time to time in accordance with the manner prescribed in the rules.” 56. Similarly Section 141 talks of areawise rental rates and assessment list to be prepared in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Rules but here also we are not apprised of any Rules under which procedure has been prescribed. It is admitted by respondents that in respect of buildings and land, under U.P. Act, 1916, no such Rules have been made. 57. Section 141 as it existed prior to its substitution in 2011, did not contain the word ‘areawise’ rental rates. It is admitted by respondents that in respect of buildings and land, under U.P. Act, 1916, no such Rules have been made. 57. Section 141 as it existed prior to its substitution in 2011, did not contain the word ‘areawise’ rental rates. Earlier it was confined to only assessment list but substituted Section 141 now includes word ‘areawise’ rental rates i.e. to be prepared from time to time in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Rules. 58. Section 141-A inserted by amendment Act, 2011 gives an option to the owner or occupier of the building or land or both to himself assess his liability of tax in respect of the building or land, after determining annual value in accordance with Section 140 and deposit tax assessed by him in such manner and such form as may be prescribed. Therefore to attract Section 141-A also, manner and form has to be prescribed either under the provisions of Act, 1916 or Rules framed thereunder or both but if it is not prescribed at all, then we have to see its repercussion in the matter. 59. Section 141-B which is also inserted by amendment Act, 2011 makes it obligatory to every owner or occupier of the building or land to submit a return up to date but here also that has to be as prescribed. Failure to submit return may attract penalty as prescribed in Section 140-B. Therefore it also contemplates something to be done as prescribed. One has to follow provisions contained under the Act or the Rules, as the case may be, for such compliance. 60. Section 142 substituted by amendment Act, 2011 contemplates publication of list prepared under Section 141 in accordance with manner prescribed in Rules. This provision also specifically contemplates that list has to be published in accordance with manner prescribed in Rules. 61. Similarly Section 143 substituted by amendment Act, 2011 authorized Municipality or EO authorized by Municipality in this behalf, to dispose of objection in accordance with manner prescribed in the Rules. Here also the prescription and manner has to be, by framing of Rules. 62. It is admitted case of respondents including NPP that wherever provisions discussed above talk of manner etc. as prescribed, such has not been prescribed either under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 63. Here also the prescription and manner has to be, by framing of Rules. 62. It is admitted case of respondents including NPP that wherever provisions discussed above talk of manner etc. as prescribed, such has not been prescribed either under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 63. The meaning of the word ‘prescribed’ and its consequence came up for consideration before this Court in Virendra Kumar Tyagi v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2006 (1) AWC 834, wherein Division Bench presided by Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J. (as His Lordship then was) construed Section 15 (2A) read with Section 2 (ii) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act, 1973’) and held that mutation charges can be levied and demanded at such rates and in such manner as may be prescribed. The meaning of the word ‘prescribed’ has been given the same meaning as under Section 4 of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 i.e. prescribed by Rules made under the Act. Court also observed that when something is required to be prescribed by framing Rules as per the provisions of the Act, such Rules cannot be made unless notified in gazette. Following the well-settled principle that if a Statute provides that an act has to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all, Court held that unless prescribed by Rules mutation charges cannot be levied. Law laid down therein, in the context of mutation charges under U.P. Act, 1973 is equally applicable in respect to assessment of house tax and water tax under the provisions of U.P. Act, 1916, whereas we have already demonstrated above that unless prescribed Nagar Palika has no authority to do something on its own by acting upon itself as if even without any prescribed manner under the rules it is empowered to determine on its own, amount of tax and raise demand from the residents. 64. Similar view has been expressed by other Division Benches in Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari v. Mathura/Vrindavan Development Authority and another, 2010(4) ADJ 368 (DB) and Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(1) ADJ 325 (DB). 65. For that purpose, NPP has relied on solely on the Government order dated 18.3.2011 and stated that it has followed the same. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari v. Mathura/Vrindavan Development Authority and another, 2010(4) ADJ 368 (DB) and Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(1) ADJ 325 (DB). 65. For that purpose, NPP has relied on solely on the Government order dated 18.3.2011 and stated that it has followed the same. We may examine whether a Government order can be a substitute of something which is required by prescribed Act or Rules. First of all, we may examine whether Government order dated 18.3.2011 itself provides anything as required by Sections 140, 141, 141-A, 141-B, 142 and 143 as amended in 2011. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit of NPP and reads as under: ^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d izns'k dh uxj ikfydk ifj”knksa@iapk;rksa ds vk; ds lalk/ku esa o`f) ,oa ,d:irk cuk;s j[kus ds mn~ns'; ls mRrj izns'k uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dks mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 8 lu~ 2011 }kjk fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkk djus ds mn~ns’; ls la'kksfèkr fd;k x;k gS%& ¼d½ uxj ikfydk }kjk laifRr dj dks mnxzghr djuk ¼/kkjk 128½ ¼[k½ uxj ikfydk ds fuokfl;ksa dks Lodj fu/kkZj.k dh lqfo/kk iznku djuk ¼/kkjk 141 d½ ¼x½ uxj ikfydk ds {ks= ds Hkhrj xSj vkoklh; laifRr ds laca/k esa okf"kZd ewY; dh ifjHkk"kk dks ifjofrZr djuk ¼/kkjk 140½ 2- vf/kfu;e esa mDr la'kks/ku mRrj izns'k vlk/kkj.k xtV ds fo/kk;h ifjf'k"V ds Hkkx&1 ds [k.M&d esa vf/klwpuk fnukad 11-03-2011 }kjk izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gSA vf/kfu;e esa la'kks/ku ls lEcfU/kr izkfo/kku layXu gSaA d`i;k vf/kfu;e dh mDr la'kksf/kr O;oLFkk dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A** “In reference to the above mentioned subject, with the objective of bringing about growth and uniformity in the means of income of Nagar Palika Parishads/Panchayats, the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 has been amended by the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 8 of 2011 for making the following arrangements: (a) The property tax to be levied by Nagar Palika (Section 125). (b) Providing facility of self tax assessment to the residents of Nagar Palika (Section 141 A). (c) Modifying the definition of annual value in relation to non-residential property situated within the limits of Nagar Palika (Section 140). (2) The aforesaid amendment has been published by the notification dated 11.3.2011 in the clause (A), part I under the legislative appendix of the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary. The provisions in relation to the amendment in the act is attached herewith. (2) The aforesaid amendment has been published by the notification dated 11.3.2011 in the clause (A), part I under the legislative appendix of the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary. The provisions in relation to the amendment in the act is attached herewith. Strict compliance of the aforesaid amended provisions of the Act may please be ensured.” (English translation by the Court) 66. The letter dated 18.3.2011 has been issued by Sri Alok Ranjan, Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and addressed to all Commissioners, District Magistrate of State of U.P. and Director of Local Bodies. It informs them that for the purpose of bringing uniformity and to augment income of Nagar Palika Parishad/Panchyats in the State of U.P., amendment has been made in U.P. Act, 1916 by U.P. Amendment Act No. 8 of 2011 and it refers to Sections 128, 140 and 141-A. It is also said that amendment has been notified in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 11.3.2011 and amended provisions should be implemented and observed strictly. The aforesaid Government order nowhere requires or authorizes any Nagar Palika Parishad or Local Bodies to proceed to assess annual value on its own without there being any manner etc. prescribed as contemplated under the Act or the Rules. On the contrary, it requires Local Bodies to observe compliance of amended statute strictly. Copy of U.P. Amendment Act No. 8 of 2011 was appended to the aforesaid Government order dated 18.3.2011. Since aforesaid Act has no clause declaring as to when this amendment shall come into force, therefore, by application of provisions of U.P. General Clauses Act, amendment shall be taken to have come into force on the date of publication in official gazette i.e. 11.3.2011. The aforesaid Government order, nowhere authorized any Municipality or its EO or any one else to proceed to determine ‘annual value’ on their own, and make assessment, without following the requirement which has to be prescribed by Rules. 67. NPP Shikohabad, it appears, undertook on its own, authority to proceed to determine ‘annual value’ without waiting Competent Rule Framing Authority to prescribe manner etc. in which things have to be done, by making Rule. NPP due to its illegal and hurried act has caused disputed assessments which are subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions though it could have been avoided. 68. in which things have to be done, by making Rule. NPP due to its illegal and hurried act has caused disputed assessments which are subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions though it could have been avoided. 68. We also find it surprising to see that Board, NPP Shikohabad held a meeting on 31.10.2012 chaired by Sri Ram Prakash Yadav @ Nehru Ji and resolved to affirm rental rates as published in newspaper vide EO’s letter dated 12.10.2012. Neither in counter-affidavit nor supplementary counter-affidavit it has been stated that EO was so authorized in this behalf by Municipality to prepare areawise rental rates and get it published. 69. Section 141 read with Section 142 specifically provides that either preparation and publication has to be done by Municipality or EO authorized by it in this behalf. Therefore, EO has to be authorized by Municipality in respect of action to be taken under Section 141 and 142, and, otherwise EO had no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on its own for preparation of areawise rental rates or assessment list and get it published. 70. Copy of letter dated 12.10.2012 sent by the then EO to Editor of newspaper also nowhere refers to any resolution of Municipal Board authorizing EO to proceed to prepare areawise rental rate and assessment and get it published and instead, it refers to only Government order dated 18.3.2011 which we have already discussed above, does not say anything. The EO, NPP, it appears was either deliberately and negligently proceeded in the matter by taking upon himself an authority which was not actually vested in him and for that purpose deliberately misrepresented things by referring to a Government order which did not confer any such authority. 71. We failed to understand as to what prevented NPP to pass an appropriate resolution, first to authorize EO so as to take action, as contemplated under Sections 141 and 142 and why EO on its own proceeded by treating upon himself a power which was not actually conferred upon him. This action of preparation and publication of rental list by EO vide letter dated 12.10.2012, by simply referring to Government order dated 18.3.2011, is patently without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eye of law. This action of preparation and publication of rental list by EO vide letter dated 12.10.2012, by simply referring to Government order dated 18.3.2011, is patently without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eye of law. He had no such authority on 12.10.2012 to proceed to get published the so called assessment rental rates and assessment which were not even determined by any competent authority in the manner as prescribed in Statute till that time. The very basic exercise undertaken by EO was without jurisdiction. 72. We also find that Section 143 contemplates objections, when public notice is given with respect to areawise rental rates or assessment. Section 143, as it stood prior to 2011 amendment provided that not less than one month time shall be given from the date of public notice to concerned persons to make objections. A complete procedure was given in previous Section 143. Now amended provision has shifted procedure to be laid down in Rules. Hence so long as Rules are not framed and procedure including time for filing objection is prescribed in Rules, the local body or its authority cannot usurp any power upon itself in its own wisdom. 73. Admittedly, Rules have not been framed. So long as Rules are not framed there was no occasion or justification for Municipality or EO to dispose of objections of concerned aggrieved persons. Moreover public notice in newspaper was published on 13.10.2012, and Board, passed resolution on 31.10.2012. It thus gave only 17 days time. Even if it would have followed old provision which contemplates minimum period of one month for inviting objections, that period had not expired. Nowhere, any existing provision has been shown to us in which such period has been prescribed so as to allow to consider subject of public notice on 31.10.2012. 74. Further we find reference to various objections but how and in what manner those objections were dealt with and decided, nothing has been said. The objections have to be disposed of in accordance with the manner prescribed in Rules. 75. When word ‘disposed of’ has been used by Statute, it does not mean that only a reference of such objection will be given, but points raised in such objections have to be considered. There has to be an application of mind for taking a particular view on such objections. 75. When word ‘disposed of’ has been used by Statute, it does not mean that only a reference of such objection will be given, but points raised in such objections have to be considered. There has to be an application of mind for taking a particular view on such objections. But there is no such disposal of objections in the resolution dated 31.10.2012. It appears that Board treated objections as a mere formality and assumed that they can take a decision with respect to rental rates or assessment, as the case may be on their own caprice without disposal of objections in the manner prescribed in Rules. Therefore, this resolution passed on 31.10.2012 under chairmanship of the then President Sri Ram Prakash Yadav is also patently illegal and cannot be sustained. 76. Section 153 of U.P. Act, 1916 also provides that certain matters shall be regulated and governed by Rules, except insofar as specific provisions are made in the Act. It reads as under : “153. Rules as to assessment, collection and other matters.—The following matters shall be regulated and governed by rules except in so far as provision therefor is made by this Act, namely,- (a) the assessment, collection or composition of taxes; (b) the prevention of evasion of taxes; (c) the system on which refunds shall be allowed and paid; (d) the fees for notices demanding payments on account of a tax and for the execution of warrants of distress; (e) the rates to be charged for maintaining live-stock distrained; and (f) any other matter relating to taxes in respect of which this Act makes no provision or insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the (State Government), necessary.” 77. Therefore, without framing Rules laying down manner and other things, it was not possible or permissible, legally to NPP to determine monthly rental rates or assessment of any building or land for the purpose of levy of ‘House Tax’ or ‘Water Tax’. The Statute as amended in 2011 is much different than it was earlier. 78. Earlier provisions contain more detailed procedure themselves but amended provisions have shifted prescription of procedure etc. to Rules. It is admitted that no such Rules were framed by Rule Framing Authority. It is not disputed that Rule Framing Authority is the State Government. 79. The Statute as amended in 2011 is much different than it was earlier. 78. Earlier provisions contain more detailed procedure themselves but amended provisions have shifted prescription of procedure etc. to Rules. It is admitted that no such Rules were framed by Rule Framing Authority. It is not disputed that Rule Framing Authority is the State Government. 79. Supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of NPP and sworn by Mahadeo Singh newly posted TAO shows that new EO sought some clarifications from Government but admits that no clarification has been received by it. It is also reiterated that monthly rent was determined by NPP Board based on Government order dated 18.3.2011, but we do not find anything contained in the order dated 18.3.2011 which requires determination of minimum monthly rent of any building or land, as the case may be, in a particular manner. When confronted, learned counsel appearing for NPP could not dispute this fact. In what manner even minimum monthly rate of various area was arrived at, has not been specified. Public notice only shows rates proposed by EO which have already been held as without any authority. The manner and method so as to arrive at such rate not disclosed either to the public or even to this Court. Apparently, it is a clear case of arbitrary determination on the part of an officer of NPP who was not authorized to do so as also NPP and entire exercise is patently illegal. 80. Things do not rest here. We find that there appears to be a public unrest and therefore taking note thereof District Magistrate, Firozabad constituted a Committee consisting of EO, NPP Shikohabad, City Magistrate Firozabad, General Manager District Industries Centre Firozabad and Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Firozabad. They recommended, for the purpose of determination of monthly minimum rate of rent and Assessment/Self Assessment, procedure prescribed in Rules, 2000. These Rules are in respect of Nagar Nigams governed by Act, 1959 and not by U.P. Act, 1916. 81. The NPP in its counter-affidavit has said that said Committee was illegally constituted and, therefore, recommendation of said Committee was not followed by it. We sustain this objection that Committee had no statutory basis for the reason that no such Committee is contemplated either under Act or any Rules or bye laws framed thereunder. 81. The NPP in its counter-affidavit has said that said Committee was illegally constituted and, therefore, recommendation of said Committee was not followed by it. We sustain this objection that Committee had no statutory basis for the reason that no such Committee is contemplated either under Act or any Rules or bye laws framed thereunder. Secondly, Rules framed under U.P. Act, 1959 applicable to the Municipal Corporations could not have been imported for the purpose of compliance of provisions of U.P. Act, 1916 by such Committee constituted by District Magistrate, for the reason that power and authority for such procedure vested in the Rule Framing Authority and has to be prescribed by Rules or by making specific provisions in the Act, 1916 which was not done by the competent authority. The Committee obviously had no such jurisdiction. 82. Having said so we also find that NPP also had no jurisdiction on its own to proceed to make wholly illegal assessments of rates of minimum rent of building and land and thereafter assessments when the manner of same has to be prescribed by competent authority i.e. Rule Framing Authority. 83. The audacious defiance on the part of NPP is also writ large from the fact that an appeal was preferred by a resident under Section 160 of U.P. Act, 1916 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, who declared such assessment illegal and held that it was not in accordance with Statute. Instead of looking into the matter in correct perspective so as to have an occasion to follow Statute, NPP simply ignored the said judgment rendered by a Court of law and continued to press for recovery based on wholly illegal assessment and that is why it has caused all these writ petitions which otherwise could have been avoided. 84. We may also take notice of the fact that dispute raised in these writ petitions is of a general nature covering entire residents of the area. Report of Committee constituted by District Magistrate shows that a large number of people raised complaints against arbitrary recovery being pressed by NPP and its authorities. In two appeals decided by Appellate Authorities, demand/assessment was quashed. But it did not deter NPP in its activities and it continued to proceed with its recovery with adamant attitude. This is neither expected from a statutory local authority nor from the officers and public representatives managing such body. In two appeals decided by Appellate Authorities, demand/assessment was quashed. But it did not deter NPP in its activities and it continued to proceed with its recovery with adamant attitude. This is neither expected from a statutory local authority nor from the officers and public representatives managing such body. It was responsibility of Chairman, NPP to ensure strict compliance of Statute, assisted by EO, who is highest executive servant of NPP and it is his obligation to assist elected Board in discharge of their duties in accordance with Statute, but, both have failed miserably. We find no justification even otherwise as to why illegal activities had continued. These writ petitions have been imposed though with a little more care and consideration shown by respondents in faithful observance of Statute, this bunch of litigation could have been avoided but that has not been done. 85. We, therefore, find it a fit case NPP should be saddled with exemplary cost. 86. The writ petitions are allowed. Assessments made by NPP and demand raised against petitioners are hereby quashed. Respondents NPP, Shikohabad shall be liable to pay cost of Rs. 50,000/- in each set of petitions. 87. Further, pursuant to impugned assessment and recovery any amount, if has been realized from petitioners, same shall be refunded with interest @ 10% per annum, which shall be computed from the date of payment by petitioners, till the date of refund. 88. However, we give liberty to State Government to look into the matter and recover the amount of cost and interest from the concerned EO or any other persons found responsible for such illegal act, by making such inquiry as permissible in law.