K.SUBBA RAO, J.R.MUDHOLKAR, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N.WANCHOO
Gopal Narain – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises the question of the constitution validity of S. 128(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1916), hereinafter called the Act, in so far as it authorizes a Municipal Board to impose all or any of the taxes mentioned therein in any part of the municipality.
2. Bareilly is an old City in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the middle of the 19th century it consisted of small houses situated in congested localities with narrow lanes. At some distance away from the said City area there existed even then a cantonment area. Between the City area and the Cantonment area there was a tract of uneven and undeveloped land. The Municipal Board of Bareilly acquired a part of the said land and, together with some nasul land, developed it at a considerable cost. The newly developed area come to be known as the Civil Lines. The Municipal Board has provided special amenities for the residents of that area. The said facts and the particulars of the amenities provided are given in the counter-affidavit filed on the behalf of the Municipal Board and a map of the Bareilly City and the Cantonment
Relied on : Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer Kasaragod
Referred to : State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra
Dwarka Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dhirendra Kumar v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal
Purshottam Govindji v. B. M. Desai
M/s. Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India
P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.