T UMRAO DEVI BANTIA Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY CUM I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT SECUNDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-The petitioner is the owner and claims to be in possession of the premises bearing No.207, Sikh Road, Secunderabad, which is a residential house. The 2nd respondent - Secunderabad Cantonment Board vide its tax bill, dated 17-1-2002, raised a supplementary bill for the period from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002 proposing to realize the tax from the petitioner such as house tax, conservancy tax, water tax, lighting tax and library cess and called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,41,578/- enhancing the annual rental value of the house to Rs.7,00,000/- from that of Rs.6,00,000/-. However, there appears to be some dispute as to the nature of the premises with which we are not concerned for the present in this writ petition.

(2.) Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein preferred appeal under Section 84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (for short 'the Act') before the 1st respondent on several grounds, which is numbered as C.M.A. No.38 of 2002. The 2nd respondent filed LA. No.3056 of 2003 in the appellate Court with a prayer to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 87(b) of the Act insofar as deposit of the disputed tax amount is concerned. The petitioner herein filed a detailed counter-affidavit opposing the application filed by the 2nd respondent herein mainly contending that rejecting the appeal by the Court, as such, does not arise and that the conditions of right of appeal contained in Section 87 of the Act are directory in nature and not mandatory. Other objections were also raised. The appellate Court vide its order, dated 28-3-2005, allowed the petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein and accordingly rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to deposit the disputed tax amount which is a condition precedent for maintaining the appeal.

(3.) In this writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, inter alia, submits that the conditions of right of appeal contained in Section 87(b) of the Act do not apply for maintaining the appeal but are only for hearing of the appeal. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appellate Court committed a serious irregularity in dismissing the appeal. The appellate Court cannot dismiss the appeal for the reason of non-compliance of the requirements stipulated under Section 87(b) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appeal could not be heard and decided, unless the appellant, in a given case, complies with the requirements stipulated under Section 87 of the Act but the appeal itself cannot be dismissed. That at any rate, learned Counsel contends that the appellate Court, in law, could not have directed the petitioner herein to deposit the disputed tax amount as prayed for by the 2nd respondent herein.