ANIL KUMAR GULATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Expressing the view that the issues involved are of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Mali, v. The Union of India, AIR 1977 Madh Pra 116 (FB) and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 43) (FB), wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.

(2.) The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments, one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the Municipalities Act) and the rules framed for carrying out the purposes of the said statute. As the assail and attack is to the constitutional validity of such provisions in both the enactments relating to the imposition of property tax, the jurisdiction, the manner, the mode and the method, we are inclined to deal with the same in a composite order though we will be adverting to the pertinent provisions in both the statutes separately wherever It is necessitous. We may also hasten to state here that in addition to the challenge of the provisions in issue, there is also a prayer for quashment of the resolutions passed by the various Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, and the directions issued by the State Government and notices issued to the owners for levy of property tax and in some cases water tax and other taxes. It is condign to mention here that the centrum issue being relatable to the questioning of the constitutional validity of the provisions pertaining to property tax, we would be dealing with the said aspect and thereafter would address ourselves in relation to other facets depending upon the nature of the attack as facts warrant.

(3.) To appreciate the factual score, it is seemly to state that in W.P. No. 1374/98 the relevant provisions, namely, 126, 127 and 127-A of the Municipalities Act and M.P. Municipality (Determination of Annual Letting Value of Building/Land) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 Rules) are under scrutiny and in W.P. No. 2431/98, the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act, 1956, namely, Stations 132, 135 and 138 are under question. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we would refer to the factual matrix ion both the cases. In W.P. No. 1374/98. the petitioner No. 1, Panagar Sangarsh Samiti, has been constituted to look after the interest of the residents of Panagar so far as various taxes are imposed by the Panagar Municipal Committee is concerned. The said Samiti is represented by its President, and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, the members of the said Samiti are the residents of two wards situated within the limits of the Municipal Area and they have been personally aggrieved. It is put-forth that Section 126 of the Municipalities Act provides for determination of the annual letting value of land or a building. The procedure has been prescribed how the same has to be determined. The said provisions have been incorporated by M.P. Act No. 18 of 1997 which came into force on 21-4-1997. Section 127 of the Act confers power on the Municipal Council to impose several taxes including water tax, general sanitary tax, general lighting tax, general fire tax and general welfare tax etc. Reference has been made to Section 127(4) which deals with water tax. Section 126(1) empowers the State Government to make certain rules in regard to the annual letting value. The said rules have been brought into existence by Notification dated 29-5-1997, and thereafter, certain amendments were introduced in the rule by notification dated 30th Sept. 1997.