DANGA VEERASWAMI Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the order of our learned brother Jagan Mohan Reddy J., whereby he dismissed Writ Petition No. 1522 of 1965 filed by the appellant along with W. P. No. 1376 of 1965 filed by another. We are concerned in this appeal only with the former petition. The main point on which the order under appeal is based is that the respondents 2 to 5 incurred no disqualification within the meaning of Sec 20(j)of the Gram Panchayat Act by reason of non payment of half-yearly house tax within 30 days from the date of service of demand notice on them by affixture on 22nd and 23rd June, 1965 even assuming that such service was in fact effected and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be directed by issue of Writ of Mandamus not to conduct the meeting in pursuance of his notice based on requisition for a motion of no confidence against the petitioner Sarpanch under Sec, 51 (2) signed by them and some others. Learned Counsel Mr. Kodanda Ramayya relying on Memorandum No. 512/Pts. III/ 64-2 dated 9-4-1962 (which was not placed before our learned brother) contends that the half yearly demand notice served on the respondents were quite in order and valid in law and failure to comply with the notices entailed in law the disqualification alleged and therefore the order of our learned brother should be vacated.

(2.) It is not easy to see how the Memorandum relied on advances the case of the appellant when it is obvious from the very language employed therein which is express and implicit enough that the levy of house tax as before was to be continued only till such time as the Government make rules under Section 70 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act 1964 prescribing the maximum and minimum limits within which the Gram Panchayat shall fix the rate of house tax. It is indisputable that Government has made rules and they are contained in Government notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in G. O. M. S. No. 282 Panchayat Raj-Panchayats-VIII dated 12-3-65. In Rule 3, maximum and minimum rates of house tax have been duly specified in a table. Rule 4 provides for the method of ascertainment of the plinth area. Rule 6 prescribes the manner of ascertaining the annual rent or capital value of houses. Rule 7 is categorical that if the tax remained unpaid for more than 12 months, the executive authority may require the occupier for the time being of such house to pay the amount within a specified period not being less than 30 days. Once, these rules have been published, reliance on the instructions in a memorandum which according to its clear language endured only until the rules were made is of no avail. Our learned brother has also referred in his order briefly to the historical back ground of legislation in this behalf which we need not recapitulate at length here. It would appear that under the old Act in force which was replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat, Act II of 1964, the house Tax used to be assessed on half yearly basis and the demand used to be made accordingly. Section 70 (1) of the present Act made a substantial departure in this behalf. It no doubt fixed the house tax either on annual rental value or capital value or such other value as may be prescribed but enjoined that the house tax shall be levied every year and shall be paid by the owner within 30 days of the commencement of the year. It was provided further that it shall be levied at such rates as may be fixed by the Gram Panchayat not being less then the minimum rates and not exceeding the maximum rates prescribed in regard to the basis of levy adopted by the Gram Panchayat. Under Schedule II Part 1 (A) clause 1 (2), it was stated that as soon as may be after the tax payable by a person is determined for the first time under the Act such person shall be served with a notice in the prescribed manner and thereupon be shall be liable to pay the tax, year after year on, or before the prescribed date without any fresh notice thereafter. That was the scheme of the Act and as it would necessarily take some time for fixing the minimum and maximum rates some transitional provisions were made in this behalf in Schedule VI Clause 12. That clause provides for the continuance of the old mode of levy of tax by or on behalf of a Gram Panchayat for the year in which the Act was brought into force and also for the subsequent years until the Government by general or special order direct otherwise. After this, came the memorandum relied on by the learned Counsel and then, came the rules which contain provisions for levy of house tax etc. to which reference is already made. It is therefore clear that the transitional provision made in Rule 12 of Schedule VI came to an end with the advent of G. O. Ms. No. 282. In fact rule 7 contains clear provision that if the tax remains unpaid for more than twelve months the authority may require the occupier for the time being of such house to pay the amount within a specified period, not being less than 30 days. Thus, under the Act the contemplated levy being on annual and not on biennial basis and the payment for the first year being due on service of notice prescribing the date for payment, it is indisputable that the levy in this case for six months is against law. Therefore no question of disqualification arise in relation to respondents 2 to 5. The writ petition has been rightly dismissed. This appeal also is accordingly dismissed.