The appellate officer set out these circumstances in his statement and then formulated the three questions thus .lm15 Whether the occupation of the property by a Military Officer under the above circumstances amounts to user thereof for the public purpose.
The High Court answered the two questions in the affirmative and the third in the negative.
It was also admitted that the assessment list was signed originally by three of the four persons who formed the assessment companymittee and was signed by the fourth member a few days later.
Against the High Courts decision on the second question the Cantonment Board has filed this appeal on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court.
The appellate officer who is required by s. 84 2 to state his own opinion on the points referred stated that in his opinion the occupation by the Military Officer, did number amount to user for a public purpose number did it amount to occupation by the government and further that authentication of the assessment list was valid.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Reference No.
6 of 1923 amounts to its occupation by the Central Government, within the meaning of a. 99 2 6 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
VI of 1923 on a lease by the Central Government and was being used at the relevant time by some military officer for his residence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sen, D. Gupta and P. D. Menon for the appellant.
538 of 1960.
Admittedly half of this Bungalow had been.
The respondent did number appear.
Whether the authentication of the Assessment list in the present case is valid as required by the provisions of Section 69, Cantonments Act, 1924.
2 of 1956.
127 B, Bank Road, Ambala Cantonment, by the assessment companymittee of the Cantonment Board, Ambala, three questions arose as regards the liability of the assessee on which the officer bearing the appeal entertained reasonable doubt and accordingly made a reference to the High Court of Punjab under a. 84 2 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, for the decision of these questions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J. In an appeal against the assessment of house tax of bungalow No.
April 3.
