MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF VIZIANAGARAM Vs. SHAH BIBI SAHEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four second appeals involve one common question and the parties also are the same in all the four second appeals. These second appeals were referred to a Division Bench by N.D. Krishna Rao, J., as the correctness of the view taken by Ekbote J., in S. A. No. 617 of 1962 which was relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant before him and was questioned by the learned counsel for the respondent. The Municipal Council of Vizianagaram, represented by its Commissioner and Executive Authority is the appellant and an assessee in that Municipality is the respondent in all the four second appeals, The second appeals arise out of four suits filed by the appellant in the Court of the District Munsif at Vizianagaram for recovery of certain sums made up of:-- (1) house-tax due for certain half-years; (2) Surcharge on the said house-tax; and (3) Library cess and warrant fees.

(2.) In addition to the other defences the respondent as defendant raised the plea that the demand made by the appellant in so far as it relates to the surcharge and the library cess was illegal as the procedure prescribed under Sections 78 and 80 and Rule 9 of Schedule IV of the Madras District Municipalities Act had not been followed by the appellant Municipality before the demand was made.

(3.) The learned District Munsif upheld this contention of the respondent and held that the demand of tax towards surcharge and library cess made by the appellant was Illegal. In appeal preferred by the Municipality, the learned District Judge Visakhapatnam reversed the decision of the trial Court in so far as the demand of the library cess was concerned and held that the demand was made in accordance with the provisions of law. It, however, confirmed the decision of the trial Court in so far as the demand for surcharge was concerned and held that though Sections 78 and 80 of the Act have no application to the cases, since the procedure laid down by Rule 9 of Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act was not followed before the demand was made, that demand was illegal and that, therefore, the defendant was not liable to pay the amount which represents the surcharge.