K P VENKATA SUBBAIAH Vs. HLNDUPUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five owners of buildings In Hindupur who were liable to pay property tax filed a suit O.S. 223/65. D.M C Penukonda (later transferred to Hindupur and numbered as O.S. No. 108/66. D.M.C.. (Hindupur) for a declaration thai the revised assessments and taxes levied from 1-4-1965 were Illegal, and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendent-munlcipallty from collecting the enhanced levy They filed an application, I. A. 320/65 under O. I., R. 8. C.P.C. for permission to file the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the owners of the buildings in the town and they were permitted to do so. They challenge the. quinquennial revision of taxes efected from 1-4 1965 on several grounds. it is contended ttut the revision was effected by a Valuation Officer purporting to act under rulel 8. Schedule V of Act 5 of 1920 (which is now replaced by Act 6 ot 1965) .According to the plaintiffs Rule 8 (A) which confers powers on the Government to appoint Valuation Officer is ultravires the provisions of the Act as it purports to delegate the functions of the executive authority namely, the Commissioner to the Valuation Officer. Under rule 6 determinate, n of the value of the land Is to ba made by the Commissioner and cannot be delegated to any other authority and hence rule 8 (A) is ultravires it is futher contended that there war no public notification in the prescribed manner and hence the proceedings by way of revision are Illegal. It is also stated that the revision of valuation Is capricious and arbitrary and against the rules and is based upon hypothetical rental value without having regard to the actual rents received. No uniform principle has teen adopted, buildings entitled Co exemption have been taxed, while buildings lalble to be taxed have been exempted. Several allegations regarding several other buildings are also mentioned.

(2.) The defendant-municipality contended that the suit was not maintainable in a representative capacity and was table to be dismissed. It was denied that the revision was unreasonable or arbitrary or that the rules had not been complied with. There was publication as required by the rules and rule 8 (A) is not ultravires.

(3.) The learned District Munslf held that in view of the decision of the High Court rule 8(A) is not ultravires and the appointment of Valuation officer was valid. He also held that the proposed revision was published in the gazette and also by beat of drum and by affixing in public-places. He further observed that as there was no change in the rate, publication in the District Gazette under Sec. 80 of Act 5/1920 was not necessary. After considering the entire evidence in the case he also held that the revision of valuation was proper and assessments made were not liable to be set aside. In the result he dismissed the suit with costs.