KURNOOI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. G LAKSHMINARASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of thirty four revision petitions a common question as to the maintainability of suits is raised by the various local authorities-the defendants in the suits-who are the revision petitioners. In the suits the building owners had questioned the house tax assessments as illegal and void under the District Municipalities Act (Act 6 of 1965). The local authorities unsuccessfully urged the suits have had abated and not maintainable in view of section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Amending Act (Act 45 of 1976.) To appreciate the issue in question the facts in the plaint of O.S.No. 166 of 1974 which gave rise to C.R.P.No. 2410 of 1977 were referred.

(2.) The learned counsel for the parties in other revision petitions have represented the questions are similar to the issues in O.S.No. 166 of 1974 and the decision in the Civil Revision Petition No. 2410 of 1977 would govern other revision petitions in the batch.

(3.) B. Rangacharlu (the plaintiff in O.S. No. 166 of 1974) alleged he owns building door No. 40-800 in Peta, Kurnool. The tax assessed for the building upto 1973 was Rs. 149.14ps for half-year but the tax was enhanced to Rs. 671-55 ps. after a "special notice" was issued to the owner on 11-10-1973 however the "competent authority" of Kurnool Municipality reduced the tax to Rs. 503-61 ps. The assessee assailed the proceedings in "special notice" and averred in the plaint the house was in the cccupation of the owner and the enhancement of tax was arbitrary and void. The assessment further was averred having been made "on a wrong data" and the defendant-Municipality, it was prayed not to enforce the order of assessment and collect the tax. In their answer the Municipality averred the tax was "reduced" to Rs. 503-61 ps. from Rs.671-55 ps. after following the procedure in "special notice". The proper "data" according to them was followed. The house in one portion consisting of three rooms was rented out to Ramachandra Rao for Rs. 110/- per month, another portion on a rent of Rs.40/- per month to Sarma and the rest of the premises, the Municipality alleged, was under the personal occupation of the owner. Therefore no incorrect data formed the basis for assessment and contended the assessment was proper.