PETITIONER:
CHHAGAN LAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1977
BENCH:
KAILASAM, P.S.
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1555 1977 SCR (2) 871
1977 SCC (2) 409
ACT
M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956--House Tax
levied under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act,
1954--On appeal corporation directed to decide the assess-
ment afresh--Whether tax is payable from the date of origi-
nal assessment or after remand.
HEADNOTE
Under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, the
Municipal Corporation determined the house lax payable by
the appellant in respect of his house with effect from April
1, 1954. On appeal by the appellant regarding assessment,
the Additional District Judge remanded the case to the
Corporation for a fresh decision after due enquiry. Ulti-
mately, by a notice dated October 12, 1965 issued under s.
146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956
(as amended in 1961) the Corporation revised the amount of
tax payable but maintained the date of liability for payment
of tax as April 1, 1954. On appeal by the appellant, the
additional District Judge held that the tax was payable with
effect from April 1, 1965 and not April 1, 1954 for the
reason that the tax was finally fixed after the notice dated
October 12, 1965. The Revision Petition of the Corporation
was allowed by the High Court holding that tax was payable
from April 1, 1954 because the proceedings were started even
before the 1956-Act came into force.
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that (1
) as the fresh notice was issued under s. 146 of the 1956-
Act on October 12, 1965 after remand of the case by the
District Judge, house lax could be imposed only with effect
from April 1, 1965 and not retrospectively and (2) the order
of the District Judge being final under s. 149(2) of the
1956-Act the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere
with that order and in any event the High Court exceeded its
power under s. 115, C.P.C.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD: The proceeding relating to the house tax was a
continuous proceeding relating to the tax payable from April
1, 1954 and the notice issued by the Corporation after
remand by the District Judge did not amount to notice of
fresh assessment or re-assessment. [874 E-F]
1. There is no force in the contention .that under the
1956-Act the municipality had no power to pursue the pro-
ceedings regarding the levy of tax for an earlier period.
The notice issued by the Corporation to the appellant made
it clear that the Commissioner was proceeding to fix the
value in pursuance of the remand. The appellant’s plea that
the Commissioner was not authorised to determine the value
and impose the tax for any period before the date of issue
of the notice ignores the fact that the valuation and deter-
mination of tax from 1954 was pending and the proceedings
related to that period. Section 3(3) of the 1956-Act pro-
vides that all rates, taxes and sums of money due to the
Municipalities when this Act was made applicable shall be
deemed to be due to the Corporation and sub-s. (4.) states
that all suits and other legal proceedings instituted by or
against a Municipality may be continued by or against the
Corporation. The proceedings in the instant case were
originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act,
1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the house tax
were not concluded when under the new Act the Corporation
became entitled to pursue the proceedings. [874F-C, 875A-D]
2. (a) Under s. 115, C.P.C. the High Court has power to
revise the order passed by Courts subordinate to it. The
District Court being subordinate to
872
the High Court, is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of
the High Court. Moreover, the question of want of jurisdic-
tion of the High Court was not raised before that Court and
cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first
time. [875 F-G]
(b) The principles governing interference by the High
Court trader s. 115, C.I.C. have been laid down by this
Court in a catena of decisions, the last of which is The
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria &
Anr. (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621). [875H, 876A-B]
Baldevdas Shivlal & Anr. v. Filmistan Distributors
(India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435, M/s. D.L.F.
Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and
Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2324, The Managing, Director (MIG)
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and Ant.
v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindu-
stan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1973 S.C.
76 and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chan-
dra Jaipuria and Anr. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621 referred to.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1888/68.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 10-1-1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore
Bench) in Civil Revision No. 76/67.
D.V. Patel and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl., Y.S. Chitale and D.N.
Mishra for the Respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAILASAM, J. This .appeal is by special leave against the
judgment and order of the High; Court of Madhya. Pradesh,
Bench at Indore revising the order of the Additional Dis-
trict Judge and holding that the appellant is liable to pay
tax from April .1, 1954 and not from April 1, 1965 only as
held by the District Judge.
The appellant is the owner of a factory at No. 1,
Shivaji Nagar, Indore. On January 8, 1954. the rental of
the factory was assessed at Rs.564 per month and the house-
tax payable at Rs.475/14/- with effect from April 1, 1951.
The dispute is whether tax is payable from April 1,
1954. By an order dated March 20, 1956 the house-tax was
determined at Rs. 891/1/- per annum by the Municipal Corpo-
ration with effect from April 1, 1954. Against the said
assessment the appellant preferred an appeal before the
Municipal Appeal Committee, Indore. The. Appeal Committee
allowed the appeal and remanded the case for deciding it on
merits after giving a hearing to the appellant. After re-
mand, the Municipal Corporation again inquired into the
matter and determined the rental value at Rs.940/- per month
and reduced the tax to Rs.793/2/- per year by an order
dated 11th February 1957, as payable from April 1, 1954.
The appellant objected to the assessment and gave notice of
objection under section 147(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Munici-
pal .Corporation Act, 1.956, but the objection was summarily
rejected by the Municipal Commissioner. The appellant
preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of
1957 to the 1st Additional District Judge, Indore. By an
order dated March 10, 1960, the Additional District Judge
873
allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision afresh
after proper inquiry. On remand, a notice dated February
11, 1963, was issued to the appellant under section 144(1)
of the’ Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,’ 1956, as
amended by Act 13 of 1961 calling upon him to. furnish the
required information. The COrporation also, issued another
notice to the appellant on May 7, 1964, informing the
appellant that the Junior Overseer had submitted a report
that considerable changes have been effected-in the factory
and calling upon him to. submit a detailed plan. The appel-
lant replied asking for details. Subsequently, the appel-
lant received a notice dated October 12, 1965, under
section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation
Act whereby he was informed that the annual valuation of the
property was assessed at Rs.10,870.20 and Rs.764.18 was
fixed as the annual property tax with effect from April 1,
1954. He was also informed that if he had any objection he
could file his objections under section 147(1) within 30
days from the receipt of the said notice. The ’appellant
filed his objections on November 11, 1965. The Commissioner
rejected the objections by his order dated May 26, 1966, and
confirmed the valuation of the property and tax imposed by
it on October 12, 1965. The appellant was informed by the
Corporation by its letter dated June 1, 1966, that’ the
amount of Rs.764.18 as tax has been fixed with effect from
April 1, 1954, on the basis of the valuation of the annual
income of Rs.10,870.20.
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner the appellant
filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 1966 before the
2nd Additional District Judge, Indore. The learned Judge
by his order dated December 21, 1966, partly allowed the
appeal and held that the appellant would be liable to pay
the property tax of Rs.764.18 with effect from April 1,
1965, only, and not from April 1, 1954. The respondent
Municipality then filed a Revision Petition before the High
Court and the High Court by its order dated January 10,
1968, in Civil Revision No. 76 of 1967 allowed the Revision
Petition and held that levy of the house-tax at Rs.764.18
would be payable from April, 1, 1954 itself.
Against the order of the High Court the appellant filed
a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and on the
grant of a special leave by this Court on August 23,1968,
this appeal has come up before us for final hearing.
The learned counsel for the appellant raised two conten-
tions. He submitted that as a fresh notice was issued under
section 144 of the amended Act on October 12, 1965 no tax
could be imposed with retrospective effect and the order of
the High Court directing payment of tax from April 1, 1954,
is against law. It was next contended that the decision_
of the 2nd Additional District Judge is final and the High
Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with it. In any
event it had exceeded its powers under section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code.
874
From the facts set out it will be apparent that the
order fixing the tax at Rs.891/1/- per annum with effect
from April 1, 1954 was made on March 20, 1956. That
order was challenged before various forums. The Municipal
Appeal Committee had first allowed an appeal preferred by
the appellant and remanded the case to the Municipal
Corporation. After remand the Municipal Corporation re-
duced the tax to Rs.793/2/- by its order dated February 11,
1957. But again the assessment was objected to under section
147(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act.
The Municipal Commissioner dismissed the objections and
thereupon there Was an appeal to. the Additional District
Judge who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for
fresh disposal on March 10, 1960. After remand the Corpo-
ration reduced the tax further and fixed it at Rs.764.18
with effect from April 1, 1954 by its order dated October
12, 1965. The appellant filed objections and the objections
were rejected by the Commissioner by its order dated May
26, 1966. Against the order fixing the tax at Rs. 764.18
the appellant filed an appeal to the 2nd Additional District
Judge, Indore, who by his order dated December 21, 1966 held
that the property tax has to be paid only from April 1, 1965
and not from April 1, 1954. That order was challenged by
the Municipality before the High Court which allowed the
Civil Revision and held that the house-tax at Rs. 764.18 is
payable from April 1, 1954. It will be thus seen that the
proceeding related to the tax payable from April 1, 1954.
The point that is taken by the learned counsel is that after
the remand by the learned District Judge by his order dated
March 10, 1960, the proceedings started by the Municipality
by its notice, dated October 12, 1965 were under section 146
of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and as the
new Act was not retrospective in its effect the tax is
payable only from April 1, 1965. This plea cannot be
accepted as from the narration of the facts it can be seen
that it was a continuous proceeding relating to the tax
payable from April 1, 1954, and there is no substance in the
plea that the notice amounted to notice of fresh assessment
or re-assessment. Equally untenable is his plea that the
notice given by the Municipality on October 12, 1965 cannot
have the effect of levying tax for any period earlier than
April, 1965. The notice issued by the Municipal Corporation
bearing No. 18000 dated February 11, 1963, runs as follows
:-
"Under section 144(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, you are
hereby informed the necessary particulars
in the proforma given below, together with the
detailed plan of the building of the abovemen-
tioned factory may please be furnished within
7 days from the receipt of this letter; for
the purpose of assessment. As the case has
been remanded by the court, it is necessary to
make assessment again."
The notice itself specifically states that the assess-
ment was to be made again in pursuance of the order of
remand. The notice No. 10195 dated October 12, 1965 is under
section 146 of the Municipal Act and it stated that on
remand of the matter from the District Court
875
regarding the assessment of the property. No.1, Shivaji
Nagar, the annual tax has been assessed at Rs. 764.18 and
called upon the appellant to file any objections if he has
within 30 days from the receipt of the notice under section
147(1) of the Act. The notice itself makes it clear that
the Commissioner was proceeding to fix the value in pursu-
ance of the remand and called upon him to file his objec-
tions under section 147. The plea of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the Commissioner is not authorised
to determine the value and impose a tax for any period
before the date of issue of the notice. This contention
ignores the fact that the valuation and determination of the
tax from the year 1954 was pending and the proceedings
related to. that period. Section 3 of the M.P. Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956, Act 23 of 1956, amongst other things
provides under sub-section (3) that "All rates, taxes and
sums of money due to the Municipalities of such city when
this Act is made applicable shall be deemed to be due to the
Corporation," and under subsection (4) of section 3 "All
suits or other Legal proceedings, civil or criminal, insti-
tuted by or against the Municipality of such city may be
continued by or against the Corporation." The proceedings
were originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities
Act, 1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the
house-tax were not concluded when under the new Act the
Corporation became entitled to pursue the proceedings. We
do not see any basis for the contention that under the new
Act the Municipality had no power to pursue the proceedings
regarding the levy of the tax for an earlier period. We
therefore reject the first contention as being without any
substance.
The second contention is based on section 149 of the
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It pro-
vides that any appeal shall lie from the decision of the
Municipal Commissioner to the District Court, when any
dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building
to assessment. Sub-section (1) of section 149 provides
that the decision of the District Court shall be final. It
was submitted that the decision of the District Court was
therefore final and that the High Court was in error in
entertaining a Revision Petition. This plea cannot be
accepted for, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
the High Court has got a power to. revise the order passed
by courts subordinate to it. It cannot be disputed that
the District Court is a subordinate court and is liable to
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. That leaves
us with the last contention of the appellant that the High
Court acted beyond its power as a court of revision. This
point will have to be summarily dismissed as the question of
want of jurisdiction of the High Court was not raised before
the High Court and therefore cannot be allowed to be raised
in this Court for the first time. The learned counsel for
the appellant pleaded that the question involves total lack
of powers of the High Court and this Court should hold
that the order of the High Court is without jurisdiction.
This Court has laid down the principles governing interfer-
ence under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is Bal-
devdas Shivlal & Anr. v. Filmistan Distributors (India) (P)
Ltd. & Ors.,, (1) M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co.
(P) Ltd. v.
(1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435.
8--206SCI/77
876
Sarup singh and Ors.,(1) and The Managing Director (MIG)
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hyderabad and Anr.
v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindu-
stan Aeronautics Ltd. Balangar Hyderabad.(2) These cases
have been referred to in the recent decision of this Court
in The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra
Jaipuria and Anr..(3) and the attention of the learned
Judges of the High Court was drawn to the law declared by
this Court. We consider it unnecessary to discuss the law
on the subject over again as this appeal is liable to be
dismissed on the ground that the point was not taken before
the High Court and the discretion of this Court to interfere
or not is beyond question.
In the result we find that there is no substance in this
appeal and dismiss the same with costs.
P.B.R.. Appeal dis-
missed.
(1) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2324.
(2) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 76.
(3) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621.
877