LAWS(APH)-1967-4-32

GUNTUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. GADDE SUBBA RAO

Decided On April 20, 1967
GUNTUR MUNICIPALITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER Appellant
V/S
GADDE SUBBA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) for declaration that the revision of the property tax made by the appellant (defendant-Municipality) is arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable and for an injunction restraining the Municipality from collecting the tax at the enhanced rates.

(2.) The respondent (plaintiff) wons three buildings within the limits of Guntur Municipality and they were assessed to property tax for the half-year ending 31st March, 1955 at Rs. 293-11-1. This assessment was made by the Municipality on the annual rental value of the buildings. The Municipality in the course of general revision of the property tax enhanced the half yearly assessment for these three buildings from Rs. 293-11-1 to Rs. 823-14-3. It is this increase in the assessment that is challenged by the respondent. The Municipality resisted the action on the ground that the Special Revision Officer made a personal inspection and after local enquiry it enhanced the assessment having regard to the material gathered by him and therefore the revision made in accordance with the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act cannot be challenged in a civil Court.

(3.) The District Munsif found that the civil Court has jurisdiction and that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The Municipality carried the decree of the District Munsiff in appeal and the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff would be liable to pay only Rs. 352-1-5 towards half yearly assessment. Mr.Venkatarama Reddi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that firstly the action is not maintainable in a civil Court in view of the fact that the plaintiff had not exhausted the remedies provided for under the Act, and secondly, that the astual rent realised by the plaintiff is hot a material factor in determining the reasonably expected rent for the buildings and that the action of the Municipality is justified under section 82 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act.