STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAGINDAS MANEKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three appeals by the State of Bombay against the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judges, S. D. , Ahmedabad, and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, restraining the Ahmedabad Municipality and the State of Bombay

(2.) THESE three appeals arise from three different suits. The plaintiffs in these suits are cousins and are owners of three properties, which form parts of one building. The land, on which this building stands, was purchased in 1940. The whole building was built at one time and thereafter it was divided into three portions, which were given different Municipal Census Nos. 2347, 2348 and 2348a. A portion in front of the entire building was kept joint for use as a common passage. Each of these three portions is separately owned and separately assessed to property tax by the Ahmedabad Municipality. Each portion has got a ground floor and two upper floors and a separate stair-case. There is one continuous terrace on the top of the building, but it has demarcating lines. The three properties are shown as belonging to different persons, the plaintiffs in the three suits, in the property Register and in the Municipal records. The plaintiffs' case is that each of these properties was separately assessed for the urban immoveable property tax leviable under Section 22, Bombay Finance Act up to 1946-47 on the annual letting value of that property. In the bills for 1947-48 and 1948-49, the tax was, however, claimed at the higher rate of 7 1/2 per cent, on the total annual letting value of all the three properties. In 1950 the plaintiffs therefore filed three suits, in which they prayed for injunctions against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, defendant 1 and the State of Bombay, defendant 2, directing them to prepare separate bills for each property on the basis of its annual letting value alone. Defendant No. 1 the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad did not appear and the suits against it were heard ex parte. The suite were defended by the State of Bombay. The contention of the State was that all the properties were parts of one building and that consequently under the second proviso to Section 22, Bombay Finance Act, the urban immoveable property tax could be assessed on the annual letting value of the building as a whole. This contention has not been accepted by both the lower Courts. The State of Bombay has therefore come in appeal.

(3.) SECTION 22, Bombay Finance Act, 1932, is in the following terms:--There shall, subject to the provisions of Section 23, be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on buildings and lands, hereinafter called the 'urban Immovable Property tax' at such rate not exceeding seven per cent, of the annual letting value of the buildings or lands in such area or areas as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette: provided that