COMMISSIONER OF SASARAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. RAM SARUP PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the Commissioners of the Sasaram Municipality (hereinafter to be referred to as the municipality) is directed against a judgment of the Munsif, 1st Court, Sasaram, whereby he has dismissed a mall cause court suit instituted by the municipality against the opposite party for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 85 on account of arrears of holding and water taxes, besides costs of the suit. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a committee constituted under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), could legally dispose of an application filed by the opposite party under Section 116 of the Act against the revisional assessment of holding tax on the opposite party's holding. The case has been referred to this Bench as there is a conflict of decisions in this Court an this point.

(2.) The opposite party is the owner of holding No. 150 in ward No. 1 of the municipality. It consists of plots Nos. 402, 403, 407 and 408 in mahalla Gaurakshini within the municipality. Briefly stated, the municipality's case is that holding tax was introduced in the municipality from the year 1946-47, and that the holding in question was assessed to holding tax, amounting to A sum of Rs. 20 per year, in the year 1952-53. The holding was further assessed to water tax at the rate of Rs. 50 per year from the fourth quarter of 1957-58. In the revisional assessment in 1958-59, the holding and water taxes remained the same. The opposite party has defaulted in payment of the holding and water taxes to the tune of Rs. 85.

(3.) The defendant (who is the opposite party in this Court) filed a written statement, and took various pleas. The only point, however, which was urged in argument on his behalf before the learned Munsif was that the revisional assessment in 1958-59 was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Act, and the objection filed by him against the assessment was not disposed of by a committee constituted under Section 117 (2) of the Act as it should have been. On this basis, it was contended that the objection was not legally disposed of and hence he was not liable to pay the holding tax as assessed upon the holding. Another argument was that he was not liable to pay the water Lax also.