BERHAMPUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. P BHAGI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Berhampur Municipality through its Executive Officer, being aggrieved by the order dated 11-11-1985 of the First Additional District Judge, Berhampur in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1985 allowing in part the order dated 31-8-1984 passed by the Munsif, Berhampur, in T.M.S. No. 100 of 1983 has preferred this second appeal invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-Berhampur Municipality, in brief, is that the Berhampur Municipality (a Corporate Body) through its Executive Officer filed the suit for realisation of arrear holding and other taxes from the defendant. It is asserted in the plaint that the plaintiff is a body corporate under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has authority to levy and collect holding tax and other taxes under the said Act. The defendant-respondent owns a house in L.I.G. Colony, Gajapati Nagar under the Berhampur Municipality and as such, he is liable to pay holding tax, water tax and other taxes under the provisions of the Act. The total tax assessed against the defendant up to the year 1982-83 was Rs. 268.16 Paise. As, in spite of notice, the defendant failed to pay the arrear taxes, the plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of the same. The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has not provided any of the facilities of scavenging, drainage, water and light supply to the house occupied by the defendant. It is further stated in the written statement that the quarter is a small one having 440 sq.ft. of plinth area and the levy of taxes is very high. It is also stated in the written statement that the quarter has got a septic latrine and there is no municipality road or supply of light by the plaintiff and, therefore, the demand of the plaintiff is unjustified and illegal. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The trial Court found the demand for water tax, scavenging tax, drain tax and light tax to be not tenable and not justified. In other words, the defendant was not found to be liable to pay water tax, light tax etc. and was found to be only liable to pay holding tax. In appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the light and water facilities having not been effectively and requiredly supplied to the defendant's quarters, the plaintiff is not liable to realise the water tax and light tax.