TOWN AREA COMMITTEE Vs. N L CHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been referred by my brothers Bishambhar Dayal and Seth to a larger bench because they felt that a certain decision of this Court requires reconsideration. It arises out of a suit brought by the respondents against the appellant for a declaration and injunction.

(2.) THE allegations contained in the plaint were as follows: The respondents are permanent residents of places outside the limits of the Town Area of Sirsaganj and are employed as teachers in Intermediate Colleges of Sirsaganj. They temporarily reside within the limits of the Town Area in Sirsaganj in connection with their employment; they do not own any property yielding income or carry on any trade or profession or earn any income within the limits of the Town Area. The Town Area Committee levies Circumstances and Property Tax under Section 14 (1) (f) of the Town Areas Act. The two colleges are situated outside the limits of the Town Area. The respondents are not liable to be assessed to the Circumstances and Property Tax but the Committee has assessed tax on them for the assessment year 1954-55 (i.e. financial year 1954-55). The assessment of the tax is illegal and beyond the powers of the Committee; hence they seek the declaration that the assessment of the tax is illegal and beyond the Committee's powers and permanent injunc-tion restraining it from realising the tax from then.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the Town Area Committee. It admitted that the respondents live in the town area in connection with their employment and that the Committee levies, and has assessed them to, circumstances and property tax. It pleaded that the respondents reside and earn income within its limits, that they have been rightly assessed to the tax, that they are not entitled to any relief and that their suit was barred by Section 18 (4) of the Town Areas Act. It added that they had objected to the assessment list, that the objection had been dismissed and that their appeal under Section 18 had been dismissed by the District Magistrate. In the examination under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure its counsel admitted that the colleges in which the respondents are employed are situated beyond the limits of the town area, that they do not own any immovable property within the limits except that they reside within the limits and occupy immovable property as tenants and that the only activity that they do is serving as teachers. On behalf of the respondents it was admitted that their appeals against the assessments were rejected by the District Magistrate. The trial Court framed the following issues:--