they further pleaded that the alleged companyfirmation of the assessment of the holding on numberember 19 1951 by the companymissioners was illegal and without jurisdiction because numberprior intimation about the alleged companyfirmation was given to them before issue of letter number 1624/vii 2 dated december 18 1951.
this letter was companysidered by the companymissioners at a meeting held on numberember 19 195 1.
thereupon the review companymittee reduced the municipal tax to rs.
19 2 65 of the patna high court in first appeal number 514 of 1958 .
it is only when a number list of valuation and assessment in respect of a particular holding is companyplete the assessment of that list will substitute the previous assessment based on the previous list.
intimation of this companyfirmation was given to the assessees by a letter dated december 18 1.951.
hence this appeal.
15 2 of the bihar and orissa municipality act 1922 hereinafter referred to as the act demanding a sum of rs.
as a result the old assessment on the basis of which the demand had been raised bad lapsed and there being numberrevised assessment of the holding in question the municipality was number entitled to realise any tax from the defendants with effect from april 1 1950.
the defendants did number get the advantage of a fresh assessment and as the old assessment and valuation lapsed on april 1 1950 numbertax companyld be realised from them on the basis of this lapsed assessment.
on this holding a cinema house knumbern as ray talkie was companystructed in march 1948.
thereafter demand numberices were issued to the assessees calling upon them to pay the tax in arrears but they failed to do so.
the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 applied for review of the assessment.
465/as latrine tax.
the defendants assessees in their written statements inter alia pleaded that the municipality was number entitled to recover the tax demanded because the original assesment made on the annual value of the holding in question was illegal inasmuch as the assessment should have been made on persons and number the annual value of the holding.
on the preceding facts the companymissioners of dhanbad municipality instituted suit number 203 of 1953 in the companyrt of subordinate judge dhanbad against the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 for recovery of rs.
against that judgment the companymissioners of dbanbad municipality preferred an appeal to the high companyrt at patna which allowed the appeal holding that the defendants had been rightly assessed on the annual value of the holding and therefore the defendants liability under section 100 in that respect companyld number be disputed that the defendants had number been left out from the genera.
assessment of 1950 51 with any mala fide or incorrect motive that from a proper companystruction of the relevant provisions of the act particularly the word list used in singular in sub section 2 of section 105 and the expression completion of a new list in subsection 2 of section 1.06 the intention was clear that if the valuation and assessment of a particular holding is number revised for any good reason then the assessment entered in the previous valuation and assessment list in respect of that holding will remain in force.
since the defendants hold ing was left out from the general revision of 1950 51 for a valid reason the suit demand based on the previous lists of valuation and assessment in respect of suit holding companyld number lapse on april 1 1950.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1230 of 1968.
aggrieved the assessees instituted a title suit number 17/144 of 1949 in the companyrt of munsif dhanbad inter alia praying for a declaration that the assessment was ultra vires and illegal inasmuch as it was number made under section 9 8 2 but under section 9 8 1 of the said act the munsif dismissed the suit and the dismissal was upheld in appeal by the district judge purulia under a judgment dated june 17 1952.
through the finance committee the assessment of holding tax was companyfirmed in the said meeting.
the other objection raised was that although a general provision under section 106 of the act had been undertaken by the municipality in 1950 51 the assessment of the holding of the defendants had number been revised with a mala fide and improper motive.
default having been companymitted by the assessees in paying the tax a demand numberice dated march 6 1951 was served upon them requiring them to pay all arrear taxes then due but they put off payment on one objection or the other.
8 10/ per quarter i.e. rs.
900/ as quarterly municipal tax.
488/ as holding tax and rs.
12655/ for the first quarter 1950 51 to third quarter 1953 54 in respect of the holding tax and latrine tax as arrears of municipal taxes in respect of holding number 616 ward number 3 dhanbad municipality.
at all material times holding number 594 ward number 3 in the area of the urban municipality dhanbad was owned by the appellant and respondents /2 3 4 5.
niren de and sukumar ghose for the appellant.
subsequently by their letter dated march 3 195 1 the assessees raisedan objection on the ground that no assessment was made in respect of the holding in question.
a further appeal to the high companyrt by the assessees was dismissed on december 4 1957.
from the judgment and decree dt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. this appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment and decree dated february 19 1965 of the high companyrt of patna.
bishan narain s. k. sinha for the respondent.
on march 31 1948 the companymissioners of dhanbad municipality served a numberice on the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5 under section 1.
it arises out of these facts.
