KAMALDHAR BADGAIYAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners of this writ petition who are residents of Raigarh have filed this writ petition against five respondents, namely, the Municipal Council, Raigarh, the Administrator, Raigarh Municipality, the Chief Municipal (officer, Raigarh, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Collector, Raigarh, with a prayer that the first three respondents may be restrained from imposing levying and recovering latrine tax and water tax at a rate other than that which was being imposed and levied prior to 1981-82 and that they may also be directed to refund or adjust the tax already paid by the citizens of Raigarh.

(2.) It is not disputed by the petitioners, as is apparent from paragraph 7 of the writ petition, that both the aforesaid taxes stood levied and were being paid by the residents of Raigarh in 1981-82. The case of the petitioners further is that the amount of both these takes was determined on the basis of the annual letting value of the property in respect of which these taxes were levied. Their grievance is that the residents of Raigarh were being required to pay higher amount of these taxes for the year 1982-83 on the ground that there had been a revision of the annual letting value. According to them, the enhancement in these taxes amounted to variation in tax within the meaning of Section 130 of the M.P. Municipalities Act (in short the Act) and since the requirement of Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 130 of the Act had not been complied with, the variation in tax was illegal.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by respondents 1 to 3 by filing a return and an additional return. Their case in regard to latrine tax is that it was not a case of variation of tax within the meaning of Section 130 of the Act but a case of revision of annual letting value and since there was an upward revision of annual letting value there was a consequential increase in the amount of latrine tax, the same being correlated with the annual letting value. Accordingly to them, since revision in the annual letting value had been made in accordance with law no exception could be taken to the consequential corresponding increase in the amount of latrine tax. In regard to water rate also, the case of respondents 1 to 3 is that no variation in this tax has been made as contemplated by Section 130 of the Act but by following the procedure contemplated by Section 129 of the Act the basis of water rate has been altered. Earlier water rate also was determined on the basis of the annual letting value of the property concerned but now the amount of water rate is to be determined on the basis of the diameter of the service line and number of taps used in the concerned property.