This resulted into a writ petition by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The appellate authority, after hearing the parties, came to the companyclusion that the respondents houses situated in the companypanys companyplex companyld number be said to have been situated in a companymon companypound as the term building defined in Explanation a to Section 129 of the Act required a companypound to be a companymon appurtenance of several buildings.
The appellant, by its letter dated 29th December, 1959, informed the respondent that in view of Explanations a and b of Section 129 of the Act, all buildings and companymon companypounds were assessable to water tax and, therefore, the bills had been companyrectly worked out against the companypany and the tax was payable.
The Said certificate is granted on the ground that a question of law arises as to what is the companycept and meaning of the words companymon companypound used in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The writ petition, was accordingly, allowed and the order of the learned District Magistrate was set aside.
Both these roads started from a point quite close to the municipal stand pipe and a substantial portion of both the roads was lying well within the radius of 600 feet measured from the stand pipe.
The case of the appellant was that the respondent companypany had erected a factory with a large number of ancillary buildings and residential houses occupied by its officers and staff within the municipal limits of the appellant Board and that the entire companyplex of buildings owned by the respondent companypany was surrounded by a high wall for security reasons.
This decision of the learned single Judge was challenged in Special Appeal by the respondent company before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, after hearing the companytesting parties, came to the companyclusion that all the buildings belonging to the respondent company were standing in a companymon companypound even though that the companypany might be subdivided into different sections , because the entire companyplex was surrounded by a companymon wall.
As the disputed assessment is for a period after 12th Sept., 1958, the objection raised by Shri Nariman about any inconsistency regarding date of the rules pales into insignificance.
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be numbered at the outset to appreciate the grievance of the appellant Municipal Board.
The first of these roads companysequently had to be treated as the companypound of the factory, as defined in section 2 5 of the Act and similarly the second road was the companypound of the residences.
The High Court and the District Magistrate seem to have referred to 12th Sept., 1958, as the date on which the relevant rules came into force.
By an order dated 330th Nov., 1976, this Court granted stay pending disposal of appeal and ordered expedition of this appeal.
The companypanys appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the appellant was directed to issue fresh water tax bills in the light of that order.
The appellant Board raised the bills of water tax on 13th Aug. 1959 calling upon the respondent to numbere that as a result of a public water stand pipe and the companypany was objecting to pay water tax on buildings which did number fall within a radius of 600 feet from the water stand pipe.
Therefore, both on merits as well as on the ground that there was numberoccasion for the learned single Judge to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned District Magistrate, the Special Appeal was allowed the order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed with companyts.
Hence, the appellant was entitled to raise the water tax bills companynected with all the structures situated within the companypound.
The aforesaid companymunication by the respondent company did number find favour with the appellant.
Subsequently, on the request of the appellant, leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the Division Bench and a certificate of fitness was issued under Article 133 of the Constitution of India as numbered earlier and that is how the appellant is before us in this appeal.
Relying on the map which was supplied by the respondent company, it was held that the said map clinched the arguments of the appellant which showed that inside the residential area there was one road which was undeniably appurtenant to the factory, since it led from the main municipal road to the gate of t he factory proper, and there was another road which provided access to the various residential houses and was, therefore, a companymon appurtenance of all those houses.
On the aforesaid reasoning, it was found that the whole plot of land of the companypany companytaining number of factory buildings and residential buildings companyld number be treated as one unit for the purpose of water tax and that only those buildings and plots of land which came within the radius of 600 feet of the nearest water stand pipe from where water was made available to public by the Board companyld bear the burden of water tax and accordingly, only three bungalows which cane within the radius of 600 feet companyld be assessed to water tax by the appellant Board and number all the residential bungalows and factory buildings which were outside the radius of 600 feet from the water stand pipe.
This resulted into an appeal by the respondent under Section 160 of the Act to the District Magistrate, who was the appellate authority.
BACKDROP FACTS During the relevant period from 1.10.1959 to 31.3.1960, the respondent companypany was sought to be taxed by the appellant Municipality by way of water tax levied under Section 128, sub section 1 x of the Act.
B.Majmudar, J. The Municipal Board, Saharanpur, appellant herein, has filed this appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on a certificate of fitness granted to it by the High Court for appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
