CHANDALADA PADMARAJU Vs. PANCHAYAT BOARD SAMALKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise common questions of law and can therefore be disposed of by one judgment, though the parties are different. The appellants are the owners of houses within the limits of the Samalkot Panchayat, while the Panchayat Board is the respondent. All the appellants are themselves in occupation of their houses. On the nth of August, 1953, a notice was issued to them proposing to revise the assessment. A representation made by them not to enhance the assessment was ineffective. Therefore, they brought suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Kakinada, for a declaration that the raising of the annual values of the respective buildings by the Executive Officer was illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Panchayat Board from collecting the enhanced tax on the basis of the increased annual value. It was recited, inter alia, in the plaint that the existing assessment of each building was quite adequate, that it was permissible for the Panchayat Board to increase the rent only when additions or improvements were made and that the Executive Officer could not raise the annual value above that which was obtaining for 12 months preceding ist April, 1940, unless improvements or additions to the houses were effected. The suits were opposed on the defences that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them, that the Executive Officer was not fettered by the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in fixing the annual value of the buildings and lastly, that the annual value of these buildings as entered in the register was very low even compared to the rents prevailing during 12 months preceding 1st April, 1940.

(2.) The trial Court granted the prayer for declaration except in respect of one building, the subject of O.S. No. 454 of 1953 (A.S. No. 59 of 1955), but disallowed the permanent injunction, in the view that the Board was not entitled to enhance the value of buildings and that the civil Court could entertain the suits in this behalf and directed the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by this decision, the Panchayat Board went up in appeal in all the suits. Some of the plaintiffs preferred memo, of cross-objections against the decree of the lower Court refusing the permanent injunction and disallowing their costs. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeals giving effect to the objections of the defendants that the provisions of the Rent Control Act would not govern the fixation of annual value under the Village Panchayat Act and that in any event, the existing annual value of the buildings was not fixed on the basis of the rent the buildings were capable of fetching at that time and thus they could not be said to be properly or adequately valued. He also held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter since the annual value in question as calculated by the executive authority of the Board was not vitiated by any illegality. It is this judgment that is under appeal now. The principal question that calls for determination is whether the enhancement of the annual value of the buildings involved in these appeals was illegal.

(3.) This has to be considered in two parts (i) whether in fixing the annual value, the provisions of the Rent Control Act will have any material bearing and (ii) whether even if that basis were to be adopted, the rental value of these premises as entered in the registers was inadequate and therefore it required revision. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is useful to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Under the Madras Local Boards Act, the Village Panchayats were empowered to levy house-tax. It was under Schedule IV, rule 12, that such a power was vested in the Panchayats. The rule says : "The panchayat may resolve to assess houses for the purposes of the house-tax either on their capital or their annual value ; but shall not assess them on any other principle."