THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHAMMAMETH REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHAMMAMETH DISTRICT Vs. MOHD. YASIN SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgement of our learned brother Bhima-sankaram J, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to for the bear from collecting toll tax arrears of Rs. 13,200.00from the respondent by distress warrant or by any other coercive method in pursuance of warrant No. 4391 dated 30-12-1957 issued by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is the Municipal Committee, Khammameth represented by its Chairman, Khammameth District. The respondent obtained from the Khammatneth Town Municipal Committee which came into existence under the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committee's Act of 1951 the right to collect tolls. On that account, he became indebted to that Committee in a sum of about. Rs. 13,200.00 for 1357 Fasli. The Municipal Committee moved the Collector to collect the amount from the respondent as if it were an arrear of land revenue. But under the said Act, there was no provision/which enabled the appellant to collect the amount due as arrears of land revenue. The amount due under the said Act could be recovered only under the ordinary law which regulates contractual obligations between parties to a contract. This was what was held in Pandit Rao Vs. Mominabad Town Municipal Committee, ILR 1955 Hyd. 761 . The respondent filed W.P. No. 13 of 1956 which was heard by our learned brother, Kumarayya, J. who by his order dated 5121957, quashed the order dated 8101955 passed by the Collector seeking to recover the amount of Rs. 13,200.00 by the attachment and sale of the respondent's property under the provisions of the Recovery of Land Revenue Rules When that writ petition was heard before Kumarayya, J it was brought to his notice by the learned counsel appearing for Municipal committee that by then, the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act XVIII of 1956 replaced the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committee Act of 1951 and that under the provisions of the former Act, the amount should be recovered by the Collector by distraint as provided for in the latter Act. But the learned judge declined to consider whether those(provisions of the Hyderabad District municipalities Act XVIII of 1956 enabled the Municipality to pursue such a course. The learned Judge observed in his order that:

(3.) The proceedings out of which the present appeal arises were initiated by the Municipal Town Committee under the provisions of the latter Act. The question is whether the Committee can avail themselves of the provisions of Sec. 120 read with Sec. 320 of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act (Act XVIII of 1956) (herein after referred to as the Act). Sec. 2, Clause (5) of the Act defines 'Committee' as a Municipal or Town Committee established or deemed to be established under this Act. It is not necessary to refer to the proviso to this clause for the purpose of this case. Sub-section 1 of Sec. 126 it in these terms;