The assessment was to begin to run from I st April, 1940, and the first payment of the assessment was to become due on 1st April, 1941.
used in official documents with the greatest frequency with refer ence to the land revenue leviable by the East India Company and later by Government in the City of Bombay and in the Presidency.
the question of assessment did number arise.
On January 31, 1940, the appellant Collector assessed the land under section 8 of the Bombay Act II of 1876 with a guarantee of 50 years as under Assessment Rs.
dated 21st February, 1947, in First Appeal No.
7,500 per annum for the first 10 years from 1st April, 1940.
Assessment Rs.
The Corpora tion appealed to the High Court.
15,000 per annum for the next 10 years.
Assessment Rs.
In his reply, the Municipal Commissioner wrote to say that the site of the market had been given to the Municipal ity as a gift for the companystruction of the market and that, therefore.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay Sen and Dixit JJ.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
64 of 1943.
There is numbersubstantial dispute as to the facts leading up to this litigation and they may be shortly stated.
By his judgment dated October 27, 1942, the learned Revenue Judge dismissed the suit with companyts.
On December 19, 1865, the Government passed the fol lowing resolution Government approve of the site and authorise its grant.
On December 5, 1865, the Architectural Improvement Committee informed the Government that it had numberobjection to the proposed she measuring about 7 acres being rented to the Municipal Commissioner and suggested that the annual charge of one pie per square yard be levied in companysideration of the expense of filling in the ground.
delivered on February 2, 1947, in an appeal filed under section 18 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act 11 of 1876 against the judgment of the Revenue Judge at Bombay delivered on October 27, 1942, in a suit filed by the respondents, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, and Madusudan Damodar Bhat, the then Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bom bay, against the Collector of Bombay.
The then Municipal Commissioner Mr. Arthur Crawford, after whom the present municipal market was named, applied for the site set aside for the exhibition buildings on the Esplanades for the pur pose of companystructing new markets as the existing markets companyld number be removed until new markets had been provided.
The plans were approved by the Govern ment and the market buildings were erected by the Corpora tion at companysiderable expense.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General S. B. Jutbar, with him for the appellant.
C. Chatterjee N. K. Gamadia, with him for the re spondents.
DAS J. This is an appeal from the judgment of a Bench of the Bombay High Court Sen and Dixit JJ.
The appellant Collector of Bombay having insisted that in spite of the Government Resolution of 1865 the Government had the right to assess the site, the Mayor of Bombay on March 23, 1939, wrote a letter to the Government stating, inter alia, as follows The Corporation have been advised that there can be numberdoubt that it was the intention of Government to make a permanent grant of the land to the Municipality, and, fur ther, that it was also the intention that permanent grant should be free from rent and from assessment to land reve nue.
44 of 1950.
Das and Bose JJ.
was read by Das J. Patanjali Sastri and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.
The Judgment of Kania CJ.,
In 1911, a portion of the market site was acquired by the Government for the widening of the Palton Road.
30,000 per annum for the remaining 30 years.
October 5.
I am to point out that the word rent was.
delivered separate Judgments.
