VALLURI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. RAYAKUDUR GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of Civil Revision petitions a common question relating to the validity of a special tax on agricultural land levied by the Rayakuduru panchayat is in question. In these Civil Revision petitions we are concerned with the levy of the tax for the half years ending with 30-9-1961, 31-3-1960, 30-9-1962 and 31-3-1963. Section 63 (3)(b) of the Village Panchayats Act X of 1950 empowers a panchayat to levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose, subject to such rules as may be prescribed and with the sanction of the Inspector and subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as may in imposed by him either at the time of granting sanction or later. It will be necessary to refer to the rules made by the Government at a later stage. P.W.1 the clerk of the Rayakuduru panchayat deposes that the Inspector General of Local Administration by his communication L Dis. No. 4097/1957 dated 7-3-1958 (Ex. A4) sanctioned the levy of special land tax by village panchayat of Rayakuduru at the rate of Rs. 5/- per acre of wet land and Rs. 2-50/- per acre of dry land to meet the cost of certain important roads to be formed in the village. The levy of the tax was sanctioned for a period of two year from 1-4-1958. In pursuance of the order of the Inspector General of Local Administration the panchayat of Rayakuduru resolved on 2-4-1958 to levy the special land tax for the years 1958-1959 and 1959-1960 as sanctioned by the Inspector, General of Local Administration. Though the levy of tax was sanctioned by the Inspector General of Local Administration and the panchayat resolved to levy the tax, no tax was in fact levied as the village karnam did not give a list of landholders and the extent of land owned by each one of them. On 7-11-59 the Inspector General of Local Administration directed the panchayat to renew the proposal to levy special land tax. The panchayat on 10-11-1960 by its resolution (Ex. A6) resolved to levy land tax during the four half years commencing from the second half year of 1960-1961 and ending with the first half year of 1962-1963 and to request the Inspector General of Local Administration to accord his sanction for levying the tax. The Inspector General of Local Administration by his order dated 22-3-1961 (Ex. A. 9) sanctioned the levy of special land tax for a period of two years from 1-4-1961. It will therefore be seen that while the previous order sanctioning the levy of tax was for the years 1958-1959 and 1959-1960 the later order of the Inspector General Sanctioning levy of tax was for two years from 1-4-1961. That is to say there was a break from 1-4-1960 to 31-3-1961 and for that period there was of order of the Inspector General of local Administration sanctioning the levy of the tax. It is the levy of the tax for the period 1-4-1961 to 31-3-1963 that is now questioned in these Civil Revision petitions as illegal. The principal argument of Sir A. V. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure prescribed by the rules for the levy of land tax has not bees followed and that the levy is, therefore illegal. According to him the rules inquire that the resolution proposing the levy of land tax must be passed at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and supported by not less than one-half of sanctioned strength of the panchayat; in the present case though the strength of panchayat is 9, only four members supported the proposal dated 10-11-1960 and therefore there was no valid proposal which could be sanctioned by the Inspector of Local Administration and the levy was hence illegal. The learned Government Pleader attempts to meet the argument by contending that while an original proposal for levy of land tax may require to be supported by not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the panchayat such a condition need not be satisfied if the proposal is merely to extend the period for which the tax is to be levied. He contends that it is open to the Inspector to extend the term even without any resolution of the panchayat requesting him to do so.

(2.) Section 63 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Panchayats Act 1950 in so far as it is relevant is as follows:

(3.) It is clear that Section 63 (3) merely enables the panchayat to levy a tax on agricultural land but does not compel it so to do. The language of Section 63(3) maybe contrasted with the language employed in S 63(1)(a) which says "Every Panchayat shall levy in the village a house-tax and a profession tax. It is for the Panchayat to make up its mind to levy or not to levy the special tax on agricultural land. It is not for the Inspector to order or compel the panchayat to levy the tax. The initiative is ever with the Panchayat. What the Inspector may do is to withhold his sanction or impose conditions and restrictions on the levy. The power given to the inspector is obviously intended to be a check on the indiscriminate exercise by the panchayat of the power to levy tax. A farther check on the exercise of power by the Panchayat is that it is to be subject to such rules as may be prescribed. Now, the rules which have been proscribed stipulated that the resolution proposing levy of tax must be supported by not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat. The law is, of course, well settled that if power is given to an authority to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the thing must be done in that manner or not at all (vide Taylor v. Taylor (1876) Ch.D. 426). A resolution of tho Panchayat supported by not less than one-half of its sanctioned strength is therefore a condition precedent to the levy of a tax on agricultural land. The sanctioned strength of Rayakuduru Panchayat is admittedly nine and since four can no more be said to be not less than one half of nine than four plus four can be said to be equal to nine. I must hold that the resolution of 10-11-1960 cannot legally impower the Panchayat to levy the tax in question. The learned Government Pleader however contends that the resolution of 10-11-1960 does not require the support of not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength as it is only a proposal for periodic extension of a tax the levy of which had been previously sanctioned. I have already pointed out that there was a break for as 1-4-60 and 31-3-1961. Having regard to the break, the resolution of 10-11-1960 cannot be considered to be a proposal for extension of a period for which sanction was originally granted by the Inspector. In fact the resolution itself does not support to request the Inspector for an extension hut purports to request the Inspector for sanction for levy of tax for two years at specified rates. The resolution also states that all earlier resolutions on the subject are thereby cancelled. I am therefore of the view that the resolution of 10-11-1960 must conform to Rule 2 of the rules and since it does not so conform, the levy of tax is illegal.