MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOZHIKODE Vs. THANKAMMAL ALIAS LAKSHMIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Municipal Council, Kozhikode, raises the vexed questions as to the jurisdiction of the civil courts in interfering with the orders passed by statutory authorities. The statute in question is the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), and to state in a nutshell, the point to be decided is whether the action that has given rise to this second appeal is barred by S.354(2) of that statute, reading :

(2.) The suit was for recovery of money paid by the plaintiff to the said Municipality as property tax for the seven half years starting" from the first of October 1949. It is the case of the plaintiff that the revision of the annual letting value of the three items of properties scheduled in the plaint, items 1 and 2 being mere garden lands without any building and item 3 being a similar compound with a building thereon, was arbitrary. At the time the suit was filed, the annual letting value stood fixed at Rs. 540/- for these three items which of course include the building. This assessment was claimed to be made by the authority not in accordance with the provisions of the statute, and therefore, it was contended, in effect, without complying with the provisions thereof and also quite arbitrarily. The Trial Court did not accept this contention and consequently dismissed the suit. In appeal, however, the learned Subordinate Judge held in favour of the plaintiff on one of the six points raised and this, according to the learned Judge, was sufficient to set aside the assessment that has been made and holding that the suit is maintainable, decreed the same and allowed refund of a portion of the amount claimed, since, according to the learned Judge, the tax which was fixed in 1939-40 was payable for these seven half years also. Hence deducting that tax from the plaint amount, a decree for the balance was given and the parties were directed to suffer their costs in the appellate court as well as in the Trial Court.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant raised various points in his arguments before me. The main point was that the suit is not maintainable. There was, according to him, materials for fixing the annual letting value available before the assessing authority, that the assessing authority acted in accordance with the provisions of the statute and that assuming that he has erred, the remedies are exclusively those provided under the statute. I do not think that the question as to whether a suit is maintainable or not can be decided in the abstract without reference to the facts of a given case. It is now more or less well settled, and no decision has been quoted before me which has taken a contrary view that if a statutory authority under colour of the statute acts in an arbitrary manner and makes an order or an assessment purporting to be under the statute, the same can always be challenged before the ordinary courts of the land. The case before me can be disposed of in the short question as to whether the assessing authority in this case had or had not acted arbitrarily.