VINAYAK GANESH SAVALE Vs. SHAHADA-KUKDEL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit giving rise to this second appeal was filed by 53 residents of Shahada for themselves and as representing the tax -payers of Shahada against the respondent, the Shahada -Kukdel Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality) for a declaration that the consolidated property tax imposed by the Municipality for the year 1954 -55 is unjust, excessive and illegal and for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipality from levying the property tax on the plaintiffs and the other tax -payers. The material facts lie within a narrow compass and may be set out as follows: The said Municipality was superseded on April 16, 1951, and one P. Y. Darp was appointed as Administrator thereof. On April 30, 1951, Darp passed a resolution imposing the consolidated property tax at the rate of twenty per cent, of the annual letting value of residential premises and thirty per cent. of the annual letting value of business premises. Objections were invited from the tax -payers, but, when the proposals were submitted to the Director of Local Authorities, the latter refused to accord sanction to the same. Thereafter, one Khandekar succeeded Darp as Administrator and on December 1, 1951, the former passed a resolution similar to the one passed by Darp. The resolution was not sanctioned by the Director of Local Authorities, because according to the latter, a flat rate of 20 per cent. should be applied to all the premises. Khaudekar thereafter, without cancelling the previous resolution, passed a fresh resolution levying a consolidated tax at the fiat rate of twenty per cent. The assessment lists were published but it is the contention of the plaintiffs that no opportunity was given to them to put in their objections to the original proposal nor to the assessment list prepared. It is also contended that the assessment list was not kept open for public inspection. It appears that for the year 1954 -55 the list prepared in 1953 was adopted by Josef, who succeeded Khandekar, and attempts were made to make recoveries on the basis of that list. Demand bills were presented to different tax -payers and it is on record that one such bill was presented to plaintiff No. 1 on September 3, 1954. The demand has been made in respect of the consolidated tax due for the year 1954 -55. It is common ground that the commencement of the liability for the payment of tax for the year 1954 -65 would be April 1, 1954. Plaintiff No. 1 gave a notice under Section 167A of the Bombay District Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on his own behalf and on behalf of the other tax -payers to the Municipality contending that the levy of tax for the year 1954 -55 was illegal and ultra vires. There was no reply to the notice. Therefore, plaintiff No. 1 gave a fresh notice on February 21, 1955. Eventually, on March 30, 1955, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for the reliefs as set out above.

(2.) THE defendant -Municipality contended that proper procedure was followed by the Municipality for levying the consolidated property tax and that the provisions of Section 60 of the Act have been complied with. The Municipality also alleged that the assessment list was kept for inspection of the tax -payers at the Municipal office. The main contention raised by the Municipality was that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court framed issues covering the contentions raised in the pleadings, but tried the following three issues as preliminary issues:

(3.) IT is in the background of the above findings of fact that we have to consider the question of limitation. Section 167A of the Act runs thus: