GANDHAM MUSALAIAH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KANTHERU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code arises under the Gram Panchayat Act which will hereinafter be referred to as " the Act". A disqualified member of the gram panchayat is the petitioner. He filed a petition before the lower authority under section 22 of the Act to set aside the order of the panchayat disqualifying him as a member. The alleged disqualification was intimated to him by the gram panchayat in the notice dated 9th December, 1965.

(2.) The ground for disqualification is that a demand notice dated 7th September, 1965 for the house-tax for half-year ending with 31st March, 1966 was sent to the petitioner by the panchayat but the petitioner did not pay the tax within three months from 7th September, 1965. It was therefore alleged that by virtue of the provisions of section 20 (j) of the Act the petitioner incurred disqualification on the expiry of the 90 days period from 7th September, 1965 which was the date of the demand notice. The petition filed before the lower authority under section 22 of the Act by the petitioner was rejected. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Sri Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before me that there was no proper notice of demand within the meaning of rule 33 of the rules framed under the Act for purpose of collection of taxes, so that it could be said that he had not complied with that demand notice and for that reason he incurred the disqualification within the meaning of section 20 (j) of the Act. This is a contention which was not raised either in the lower Court or in the memorandum of revision. However since it is a question of law I have allowed him to raise this point in revision and at the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent adjourned it by one week, so that he could look up the case completely. After the expiry of one week the learned Counsel on both sides advanced elaborate arguments before me on this point. I am satisfied that the contention of Sri Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner should be upheld. The demand notice sent by the respondent-gram panchayat to the petitioner on 7th September, 1965 is for house-tax. Rule 33 (2) which is one of the rules for collection of taxes reads :