SHIVMANIK DATTATRAYA SHIVANGIKAR Vs. LATUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a group of petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Osmanabad sitting in revision over the order passed by the learned Magistrate of Latur in appeals arising out of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. All the petitioners are the owners of properties situated at Latur town at Taluka place in Osmanabad District. The Municipal Council of Latur is a B class Municipality as per Schedule 1 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965." The Municipal Council of Latur fixed the rateable value of the buildings and after doing so imposed consolidated property tax at 19% of the rateable value under section 105(2) of the Act of 1965. In pursuance of the imposition of this tax, a bill was presented to each of the petitioners who challenged the same in the appeals before the Judicial Magistrate under section 169 of the Act of 1965. All the appeals came to be dismissed and the petitioners thereafter went in revision to the Court of Sessions and the revision applications were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 171 of the Act of 1965. He by this judgment and order dated 31st October, 1972 dispose of the revisions with a direction that a copy of the judgment shall be kept in the file of each revision. By this order he dismissed two revision applications and partly allowed the rest. In allowing the revisions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave a direction that the cases should be remanded for retrial and rehearing in the light of certain observations made by him in the judgment. I am not referring to the details of the observations. Suffice it to say that it appears that he directed the learned Magistrate to rehear the parties on the question of the quantum of the tax levied, but he also appears to have left open the question of the legality of the taxes levied to be considered by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioners who wanted the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself to hold in their favour on the question of the legality of the taxes levied by the Municipal Council, have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The prayers in the petitions which are almost common to all the petitions indicate that the assistance of this Court is requested for declaring that the imposition of the tax which is challenged is without jurisdiction, illegal and void. The challenge undoubtedly is to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council to levy the taxes in the manner in which it has done. Implict in this challenge is also a question of the propriety or the legality of the Municipal Council following a particular rule while arriving at the quantum of the tax which has been imposed.

(3.) The basis of the challenge will be evident when I will proceed to mention some of the provisions of law relating to the power of the Municipal Council to impose property tax. As already mentioned, Latur Municipal Council is in Osmanabad District which was in the east while Hyderabad State. Prior to 1956, there was an Act called Hyderabad Municipalities and Town Committee Act, 1951. In the year 1956 Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956, was introduced and the Act of 1951 came to be repealed. The Act of 1956 itself was made applicable on 11th August, 1956. As is now well known, the Maharashtra Legislature passed an Act, being Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, to bring uniformity in the Constitution, administration and powers of the Municipalities in the State of Maharashtra and different parts of this Act came into force on different dates. For the present purpose it may be taken that the Act is now fully in force in the whole of Maharashtra. Under section 105 of the Act of 1965 there is an obligation on every Municipal Council to impose a consolidated a property tax on lands or buildings or both situated within the Municipal area on the basis of their rateable value as determined in accordance with section 114. This obligation is however subject to any general or special orders which the State Government may make in that behalf. The consolidated tax on property is to include a general tax, a general water tax, a lighting tax and a general sanitary tax area. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sub-section (2) of section 321 read with the relevant provisions in section 105 of the Act 1965, the Government of Maharashtra has framed Rules called the Maharashtra Municipalities (Consolidated Property Tax) Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" to provide for the procedure for imposing consolidated property tax as per section 105 of the Act of 1965. Rule 3 of these Rules provides for, among other things, the maximum and minimum rates at which the tax shall be levied in different classes of Municipal areas. Rules 4 prescribes the procedure preliminary to imposing the tax by the Municipal Councils to which Rule 5 does not apply. It is, therefore necessary to see what Rule 5 provides for it mentions that in cases of Municipal areas, where rateable values of the properties on the basis of their rental value were not determined under the provisions of the repealed Act, the Chief Officer shall, immediately on the coming into force of these rules, undertake assessment of rateable values of properties in accordance with sections 113 to 131 of the Act and authenticate the assessment list by a date not later than the 31st March, 1971. The date on which such authentication is to be made has been extended upto 31st March, 1977. Those Municipal Councils to which Rule 5 does not apply are to take action under Rule 4 which provides that every Council shall by a resolution passed at a special meeting conveyed on a particular date decide to levy the tax on lands and on buildings and approve the rate at which the tax shall be levied. In other words, Rule 5 provides for those cases where prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1965 there were not existing determined rates of rateable values the properties situated in the respective Municipal Councils, whereas Rule 4 applies to Municipal Councils of those towns where the assessed rateable values of the properties had been determined.