CHALISGAON BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY Vs. MULTANCHAND FULCHAND SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MULTANCHAND Fulchand Sancheti, whom I will hereafter refer to as 'the respondent', constructed a building within the limits of the Borough Municipality of Chalisgaon. The completion certificate in respect of the building was issued by the Municipality on 18-10-1951. The building bears Municipal Census No. 331. The Borough Municipality of Chalisgaon is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 18 of 1935. On 31-3-1952, the Chief Officer of the Municipality inspected the site and amended the assessment list and incorporated therein an entty relating to the house showing that the respondent was liable to pay general house tax in respect of that house. The Chief Officer also issued a notice to the respondent inviting objections against the valuation of house No. 331. The notice way received by the respondent on 2-4-1952, and he submitted his objection to the valuation. On 30-6-1952, the Standing Committee resolved that the assessment made by the Chief Officer was proper and on 9-7-1952, the Standing Committee rejected the objections raised by the respondent. On 10-7-1952, a bill was sent to the respondent calling upon him to pay house tax due for the year 1951-52. The respondent paid the tax demanded under protest, and appealed against the bill to the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon, under Section 110 (1), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The respondent contended in appeal that the Municipality had no right by assessing the building in the official year 1952/53 to levy house tax for the year 1951-52 which ended on 31-3-1952. He also contended that the Standing Committee had not lawfully decided the objections raised by him. The learned Magistrate rejected the contentions raised by the respondent and, dismissed his appeal.

(2.) AGAINST the order passed by the Besident Magistrate, a revision application was filed in the Court of Session at East Khandesh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application set aside the order passed by the Resident Magistrate. The learned Judge held that the levy of the house tax upon the respondent's house No. 331 for the year 1951-52 was not valid. In the view of the learned Sessions Judge the Standing Committee could under Section 82 (3), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act amend the assessment list current at the date of amendment, and the amendment made by the Standing Committee 'can take effect from a date in the current official year only' and that the Municipality could not amend the assessment list of the previous year. In coming to that conclusion the learned Sessions Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court. 'municipal Borough, Sholapur v. Governor-General of India in Council', 1948 Bom 145 (AIR V 35) (A ). Against the order allowing the appeal and annulling the assessment of the respondent's property for the year 1951-52 the Chalisgaon Municipality has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on its civil side.

(3.) IT has been held by this Court in 'lokmanya Mills Ltd. , Barsi v. Municipal Borough, Barsi, 1939 Bom 477 (AIR V 26) (B), that even though appeals lie under Section 110 of the Act against) entries in assessment lists and against claims made by a Borough Municipality to a Magistrate, the disputes raised thereby relate to civil liability, and, therefore, from the order of the Court of Session exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Act against the order of the Magistrate a revision application lies to this Court under Section 115 Civil, P. C. Counsel for the Municipality contends that the Chief Officer was entitled to alter ex parte the assessment list, current on 31-3-1952, and thereafter to issue a notice requiring the rate payer to submit his objections thereto. He further contends that under the Municipal Boroughs Act the Municipality has the right to amend an assessment list even, after the year for which the list is current has expired, and the liability to pay the rate arising on amendment of the assessment list relates back to the date on which the notice was issued, and may be enforced even if the official year for which the list was current has come to an end, and there is on the day on which the amendment is made a fresh assessment list in operation. In other words, it is contended that even after the official year is over and a fresh assessment list has come into force, the assessment list of the previous year may be amended, and tax may be levied accordingly provided the notice inviting objections has been issued during the currency of the list to be amended.