SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. RAMCHANDRA MAROTRAO VANJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Committee of Nagpur arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover certain money which he alleges was illegally recovered from him as taxes by the Committee. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of house No. 16 and he paid the municipal taxes assessed on it up to 1935, but in spite of this an additional sum of Rs. 86 was recovered from him on this account on 21st February 1,935. The plaint further alleges that Rs. 118-12-3 was recovered from him, apparently on the same date, as taxes assessed on houses Nos. 253/1, 254/1, 254/2 and 254/4 which he never owned; subsequently the defendant admitted that he was the owner of houses Nos. 253/1, 254, 254/1 and 254/2 and alleged that he had paid the taxes due on these houses but denied that he was the owner of house No. 254/4 and alleged that Rs. 118-12-3 had been recovered as a tax on this latter house. The pleadings show that what the plaintiff alleges was a double recovery was in fact a recovery of the balance due on account of re-assessment. The trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred by Section 84(3), C.P. Municipalities Act. The lower Appellate Court has held that the jurisdiction is not barred. Against that decision the Municipal Committee has appealed.

(2.) I have been referred to the decisions in G.I.P. Ry. Co v. Amraoti Municipality (1912) 8 NLR 107, and Municipal Committee Malkapur v. A.W. Dalal (1922) 9 AIR Nag 10 In the first of these cases the plaintiffs sought to recover a sum which they said was illegally levied from them by the defendants as a tax on their trade as a carrier. Stanyon, A.J.C. pointed out that the first point to be decided was whether on the allegations of the plaintiffs the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he held that, as it was alleged that the action of the Municipal Committee was ultra vires, the Civil Courts had jurisdiction to try that issue. In the second case there was an allegation that the Municipal Committee had levied a tax on a professional income arising outside the municipal limits which was contrary to law. The facts in the present case are entirely different. It is the duty of the Municipal Committee to assess each house, to decide who is the owner or occupier liable to assessment, and to recover that assessment. Whether that assessment has been correctly calculated or not or whether it is being levied on the right person is a matter for the Municipal Committee to decide, and it cannot be said that its action is ultra vires if it decides it wrongly. An assessee has a right of appeal under Section 83 of the Act, and under Section 84(3) no objection shall be taken to any assessment or levy, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. Section 85(2) provides that no refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. There were no allegations in the pleadings to show that the Municipal Committee was acting ultra vires and therefore no civil suit will lie for a refund of the taxes paid. The appeal is allowed and the suit will stand dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 20.