DAMODAR HOTA Vs. JEYPORE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are taken up together for admission and final disposal as they arise out of a composite judgment passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Jeypore in Money Appeal Nos. 1 of 2001 and 2 of 2001 (previously numbered as Money Appeal Nos. 5 of 1994 and 6 of 1994 respectively).

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 33 of 1 993 and 155 of 1993 for realization of the holding tax of Holding Nos. 555 and 555 -A of Jeypore town respectively on the plea that the appellant -defendant who is in occupation of those holdings has defaulted in payment of holding tax. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent pleading, inter alia, that remodeling of his house can never amount to bifurcation of the holding and tax for two holding cannot be realized from him. Appellant also took a plea that the Money Suits are not maintainable as his representations under Exts. A to C challenging the levy of tax are pending before the Executive Officer, Jeypore Municipality and no claim could be made before adjudication of such representations. Learned Civil Judge on consideration of the plea and evidence of the parties decreed Money Suit No. 33 of 1993, but dismissed the claim of the respondent in M.S. No. 155 of 1993 relating to holding No. 555 -A. The present appellant preferred Money Appeal No. 5 of 1994 against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 33 of 1993 and the present respondent filed Money Appeal No. 6 of 1994 against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 155 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Koraput. Subsequently, the appeals came to the Court of learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Jeypore before whom they were renumbered as Money Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 2001. Both the appeals were heard analogously. Learned first appellate Court confirmed the decree passed in Money Suit No. 33 of 1993, but reversed the judgment passed in M.S. No. 155 of 1993. Aggrieved by those orders of the first appellate Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeals.

(3.) MR . A. K. Hota, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals submits that a holding cannot be bifurcated and holding tax of a particular holding cannot be enhanced without giving notice to the house -holder and without giving him an opportunity of raising objection and without deciding such objection. He argues that no proper notice having been served on the appellant about the bifurcation of the holding and enhancement of holding tax and the representations Ext. 1 to 3 still pending for consideration, filing of the money suit for realization of the holding tax at the enhanced rate was violative of Section 147(2) of the Orissa Municipal Act and also principle of natural justice.