Hence the present appeal by the Municipal Borough with special leave obtained from this Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13 2 1968 of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in R.S.A. No.
The main reliefs claimed in the suit were, firstly, a declaration that the Municipal Borough was number entitled to recover property tax from the rate payers at the revised rates since the assessment list was authenticated beyond the expiration of the official year and secondly, an order directing the Municipal Borough to refund the excess property tax recovered by it from the rate payers.
There was companysequently an agitation amongst the rate payers and a body called the Citizens Welfare Association championing the causes of the rate payers addressed a companymunication dated 30th November, 1952 to the Director of Local Authorities requesting him to direct the Municipal Borough to refund the excess amount of property tax companylected from the rate payers, because according to them the levy and companylection of property tax at the revised rates was illegal in view of the fact that the assessment list was authenticated only on 24th July, 1952 beyond the expiration of the official year for which the property tax was sought to be levied.
Since the Municipal Borough was determined to recover the amount of property tax from the rate payers at the enhanced rates appearing in the assessment list, the respondents, acting for and on behalf of themselves and other rate payers, filed a suit against the Municipal Borough on 6th June, 1955.
The President of the Municipal Borough thereafter issued a public numberice dated 10th November, 1954 calling upon the rate payers to pay immediately all the tax still due from them and extend their full companyperation to the Municipal Borough.
The Trial Court negatived the plea of limitation based on s. 206A of the Act and so far as the merits were companycerned, held that since the authentication of the assessment list was admittedly made beyond the expiry of the official year, the assessment list was void and inoperative and the Municipal Borough was number entitled to levy and companylect property tax at the revised rates on the strength of such assessment list.
The Municipal Borough, being aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal to the District Court, but the appeal was unsuccessful and a second appeal to the High Court also failed.
after giving numberice dated 1st April, 1955 on the hypothesis that such numberice was required to be given under s 206A of the Act.
The Municipal Borough in its written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation since it was number filed within six months of the accrual of the cause of action as required by s. 206A of the Act and it also disputed the claim of the rate payers on merits on the ground that there was numberhing in the Act which required that the assessment list should be authenticated before the expiration of the official year and that even if the assessment list was authenticated beyond the expiration of the official year, it did number have the effect of invalidating the assessment list.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Director of Local Authorities by his reply dated 16th December, 1952 informed the Citizens Welfare Association that the levy of property tax under the authenticated assessment list was, according to him, perfectly valid.
D. Bal, R. B. Datar and Rajan Yashpal for the respondents 1, 5, 6,10, 11, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36 and 50.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows The respondents are rate payers liable to pay property tax in respect of their lands and buildings situate within the limits of the erstwhile Municipal Borough of Dharwar number companyverted into the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation.
S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan for the Appellant.
2406 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal by special leave raises two questions relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.
The Chief Officer of the Municipal Borough prepared an assessment list for the official year 1951 52 companytaining revised valuation and assessment of the lands and buildings situated within the limits of the Municipal Borough and published it on 1st May, 1951 in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Municipal Borough of Dharwar hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Borough was at the material time governed by the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The respondents and several other rate payers filed their objections against the valuation and assessment in the assessment list and companysequent on the decisions on the objections, modifications were made in the assessment list and the assessment list so finalised was authenticated on 24th July, 1952.
Since the authentication of the assessment list was made after the expiry of the official year, the respondents and other rate payers took the view that the assessment list was void and inoperative and the Municipal Borough was number entitled to recover property tax at the revised rates which were higher than the rates charged in the previous official years.
It seems, however, that from a few persons, whose names do number appear in the record property tax in accordance with the revised rates was companylected by the Municipal Borough.
477 of 1962.
