MANAK CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manak Ohand & four others have filed this petn. for a writ of certiorari or prohibition or other proper order Under Section 28, Rajasthan H. C. Ordinance, 1949, or under Article 226, Const. Ind. against the Municipal Council, Jaipur City & the Assessment Officer of the Municipal Council.

(2.) The facts of this case are not much disputed. The Municipal Council, Jaipur, passed a resolution on 6 5-1947 Under Section 78. (a), City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943 (hereinafter refd. to as the Act) for the imposition of property tax within the limitation of the Jaipur Municipality at the rate of 5% per annum on the letting value of the houses & lands. A Sub-Committee was also formed to draft the rules for the imposition of this tax & finally the rules, after they were framed, were published in the State Gazette on 15-9-1947 & objections Under Section 78 (c) were invited by the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board, after having consd.. all the objections that were filed, submitted a report to the Govt. for sanction of the property tax in accordance with the resolution of the Municipality. The Govt. accorded its sanction to the proposal of the Municipality Under Section 79 of the Act on 6-2-1948. The Municipal Board then published the rules & the Govt.' sanction thereto in the Gazette, Under Section 80 of the Act, on 1-3-1948, & it was also stated in the notfn. that the rules shall come into force on 1-6-1948. The rules, however, made provision for the levy of the tax at the rate of 6% on the annual letting value of all buildings & lands or both situated within the limits of the City of Jaipur Municipality. The Municipality appointed an Assessment Officer Under Section 81 of the Act, who proceeded to cause an assessment list of all buildings & lands to be prepared as is required Under Section 82 of the Act from the 1st of June 1948. The list could not be completed before 24-12-1949. A notice was published in the Gazette on 24-121949 Under Section 84 of the Act, saying that the assessment list was complete & that it was open for inspection of the citizens within office hours at the Municipal Office Jaipur. 9-2-1950 was fixed as the last date for the filing of the objections against the entries in the assessment list. The notice did not, however, specify the period to which the assessment list related & no time was given by it when the revn. authority was to proceed to revise the valuation of the assessment. The Municipal Council then sent bills Under Section 108 of the Act to the petnrs. for the realization of property tax for three periods commencing from 1-6-1948 to 31-3-1950. The first period began from 1-61948 & ended on 30-8-1948. The second period commenced on 1-9-1948 & expired on 81-8-1949. The third period began on 1-9-1949 & came to an end on 81-3-1950. All the three periods were for one year & ten months. The petnrs. protested & Bent written notices to the Municipality that the tax was illegal, but no notice was taken of their protests by the Municipality. They have, therefore, filed this petn. on the ground that the tax is illegal & have prayed that the Municipality should be restrained from recovering it. It was alleged on behalf of the petnrs. that if no direction was issued to the opposite party, the tax would be recovered by issue of a warrant of distress.

(3.) The case of the petnre. is that : (1) The Municipality has not imposed any property tax as is required by Sections 77 & 80 of the Act, in so far as after obtaining the Govt. sanction the Municipality did not decide to impose the tax as no date was fixed for the imposition of the tax in the Notn. published Under Section 80 of the Act. (2) No assessment lists were published for each of the three periods of the tax. The notice published on 24-12-1949 also does not specify the period for which the assessment list was adopted. The date fixed for the filing of objections against the assessment list was 9-2-1950 & the notices in this behalf were served on the petnrs. in the months of March & April 1960. Thus the petnrs. could not avail of the opportunity given to them for the filing of objections, because the last date fixed for that purpose expired before the notices were served on them.