MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. NIRANJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by Defendant, the municipal committee of Panipat in Karnal District, from the appellate decree, dated November 4, 1959, of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Karnal, affirming the decree, dated October 3, 1953, of the Subordinate Judge, Karnal whereby the suit of Plaintiff, Niranjan Lal, against the Defendant for recovery of a certain amount and permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from overcharging the Plaintiff was decreed with costs.

(2.) THE Plaintiff is the owner and occupier of a house within the municipal limits of the Defendant municipality. Like other owners and occupiers of houses, the Plaintiff was paying water rate for the supply of water by the Defendant to him. On January 6, 1943, the State Government issued notification No. 3966 -LG -42/862, copy Exhibit P. 3, whereby within the local limits of the Defendant municipality water tax was imposed. There are in this notification, however, seven exemptions given from that tax and it is the last exemption that is material in the present case. It reads - -"House in which a water connection has been provided and the connection is in use". Such a house is thus exempt from the notification and consequently from the levy of water tax. The Plaintiff had a water connection in his house on the date of the notification, which connection continues up -to to -day and it has been in use throughout. The Defendant -municipality has continued, in the circumstances, to charge water rate from the Plaintiff for the supply of water even after the notification referred to above. The Plaintiff then sued for refund of Rs. 63 -0 -6 as excess or additional charge over and above the water tax for the period between January 1, 1955, and January 30, 1957. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from charging anything more than water tax from him.

(3.) THE Plaintiff, as stated, succeeded in the trial Court as also before the appellate Court on appeal by the Defendant -municipality. This second appeal by the Defendant -municipality came first before Mahajan J., and the learned Judge, on December 15, 1961, considering that the question involved is one of considerable importance and is likely to arise in many similar cases referred the matter to a larger Bench and this is how this second appeal has come before us.