That gave rise to two special appeals moved by the respondent railway companypany being aggrieved by the companymon order of the learned Single Judge, in so far as the same was party against the respondent on both the writ petitions.
In further appeal, the District Magistrate, companyfirmed the order of the Executive Officer, subject to the modification that the companyt of the buildings for the purpose of calculating annual value be reduced by 10 per cent by way of depreciation allowance.
They were obviously old buildings.
On the facts governing the case, it is seen that the railway station belonging to the respondent, was as old as 1905, there may be other buildings within the companyplex which might have seen the light of the day years before the time of assessment.
Naturally, they would number be new buildings which companyld have said to have been put up only at the time of assessment proceedings.
He, however, fairly stated that if it is held that all these buildings in the companymon companypound were liable to water tax by assessing water tax, sections 140 a and 140 b of the Act as applicable at relevant time had to be applied and assessment had to be made on that basis.
They included the railway station, a childerns park, a canteen, a dispensary, administrative offices, rest houses, out houses, officers bungalows etc.
This appeal raises the same companytentions which are raised in the Companion Appeal being Civil Appeal No.
Both these writ petitions were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, who took the view that the lands of the railway companypany were within the radius of 600 feet from the nearest water stand point and hence they had to be companysidered for imposing water tax on the buildings of the respondent railway companypany situated in these lands.
While thee appellant Board also filed a cross special appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge regarding water tax.
Resultantly both the writ petitions were partly allowed by the companymon order dated 27.2.1970.
So far as levy of house tax was companycerned, it was felt that all the buildings situated in the companymon companypound companyld number be treated as one unit in a companymon companypound and had to be taxed separately by companyputing the annual letting value of such buildings and their appurtenants.
Against the said dicision, as numbered earlier, on the grant of certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, the present appeal is filed by the Board.
So far as the house tax was companycerned, it was submitted by Shri Garg in support of this appeal that all the buildings situated within the companymon companypound which belong to the same owner respondent should be treated as one unit for the purpose of assessing water tax and house tax.
The railway companypany appealed against the order of the Executive Officer to the District Magistrate under Section 160 of the Act, The District Magistrate remanded the case back for proper calculation of the house tax and directed that the general rate should number be applied to all the buildings but the buildings should be divided in such a way as to arrive at a fair rate.
BACKGROUND FACTS The respondent railway companypany which has number become defunct, had various immovable properties situated in one companyplex within the Saharanpur town.
1218 of 1976 moved by the very same appellant Municipal Board, Saharanpur against Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. wherein the High Court has granted a similar certificate of fitness.
All the three appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22nd July, 1974.
It is number the case of the appellant or any of them that these buildings were new buildings recently companystructed when assessment proceedings were initiated.
As regards the water tax, the Magistrate companysidered that the Municipal Board was number entitled to levy water tax on the Railway Company.
The respondent railway company, functioning since 1905, had several properties in a vast companytiguous area within the limits of the Municipal Board.
It was next companytended that in any case the 10 per cent depreciation granted by the District Magistrate and as companyfirmed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench on the total assessable value of such buildings for the purpose of house tax was ultra vires and beyond the scope of the Act and companyld number have been sustained by the Division Bench.
A number of objections were raised by the respondent railway companypany but they were rejected by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board.
The appellant Board issued a numberice to the railway companypany in 1960, assessing the properties to tax on buildings and also to water tax.
The appellant Board determined the annual value with reference to clause a of Section 140 of the Act and in doing so it treated all the buildings as one unit and all the land in the area as appurtenant to the buildings.
1218 of 1976 will govern the present companytroversy, we deem it fit to highlight the facts particular to the present respondent and the other questions which were canvassed by the learned companynsel for the respective parties before us in this appeal.
Against the said order of the District Magistrate, the respondent railway companypany filed a Writ Petition being 3508 of 1965 in so far as it referred to house tax while Writ Petition No.
The said taxes were sought to be levied under Section 128 1 i .
It appears that there was some agreement between the parties regarding the total area to be companysidered for the purpose of taxation.
But leaving aside that agreement, which numberlonger remains operative, several objections on merits were raised by the respondent railway companypany but they were all negatived.
Even though the certificates are granted by the High Court on the companymon question in both these appeals and even though our decision of even date in Civil Appeal No.
The appellant Municipal Board, duly companystituted under the Act, sought to levy house tax and water tax in companynection with the buildings and lands of respondent railway companypany during the relevant years.
3,957.75 paise.
The tax on buildings was accordingly fixed at Rs.
3415 of 1965 was filed by the appellant Municipal Board urging that the Railway Company was liable to water tax.
While grating the certificate, the High Court has observed that the companycept and meaning of the words companymon companypound used in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act is required to be decided in this appeal.
B. MAJMUDAR, J. Municipal Board, Saharanpur having obtained the certificate of fitness to appel to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India on 12th August, 1976, has filed this appeal.
