The Committee under S. 117 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality by appointing one or more of the three persons nominated by the Government under S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act and two tax-payers nominated by them and a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL LAW - BIHAR AND ORISSA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1922 - S. 117(1) - CONSTRUCTION - COMMITTEE FOR HEARING REVIEW APPLICATIONS - APPOINTMENT BY GOVERNMENT AFTER SUPERSESSION OF MUNICIPALITY - VALIDITY - S. 386(1)(B) - SCOPE AND EFFECT - REASSESSMENT UNDER S. 107(1)(C) - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:

The Patna Municipality was superseded by the Government, and the Assistant Special Officer was appointed to exercise the powers and duties of the Commissioners under S. 107 of the Act. The Assistant Special Officer enhanced the valuation of the appellant's premises and the assessment thereof under S. 107 (c) of the Act, and rejected the review petition under S. 117 (1) of the Act. The appellant challenged the validity of the enhancement of taxes.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Assistant Special Officer had jurisdiction to take action under S. 107 (c) of the Act, but he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the review petition under Section 117 (1) of the Act. The Court further held that the Municipality had not established the pre-condition for the re-assessment, namely, that the original periodical revisional assessment was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
Issues: 1. Whether the Committee under S. 117 of the Act could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality? 2. Whether the Assistant Special Officer had jurisdiction to dispose of the review petition under Section 117 (1) of the Act? 3. Whether the Municipality had established the pre-condition for the re-assessment, namely, that the original periodical revisional assessment was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that S. 386(1)(b) of the Act empowers the State Government to appoint a person or persons to exercise and perform the powers and duties of the Commissioners, whether at a meeting or otherwise. This includes the power to constitute a Committee under S. 117 of the Act. 2. The Court held that the Committee under S. 117 of the Act could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality by appointing one or more of the three persons nominated by the Government under S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act and two tax-payers nominated by them and a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government. 3. The Court held that the burden is upon the Commissioners before they could amend the valuation and the assessment already made to establish that the previous assessment was incorrectly made by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the High Court was set aside and the suit was decreed with costs throughout.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J.: This appeal by special leave raises the question of the true construction of sub-s. (1) of S. 117 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. 1922 (B, and O. Act 7 of 1922), hereinafter called the Act.

2. Shrimati Shyam Kishori Devi, the appellant, is the owner of premises known as "Krishna Bhawan situated on Fraser Road in the Town of Patna Originally it bore holding No. 239, but after the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1952, was passed it was given holding No. 264 in Circle No. 6 of; the Patna Municipal Corporation. On August 4, 1944, the Patna Municipality was superseded by the Government initially for a period of three years but the said period was extended from time to time till the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1952, came into force. On March 29, 1946, the Government issued a Notification directing that S. N. Sarkar, Assistant Special Officer of the Patna City Municipality, shall also exercise and perform the powers and duties which might be exercised and performed by the Commissioners under S. 107, among other sections of the Act. On November 21, 1949, the Government of Bihar issued another Notification directing that each of the three officers mentioned therein shall exercise and perform the powers and duties conferred and imposed on a Committee constituted under S. 117 of the Act. One of the said officers was the said S. N. Sarkar, who was also appointed under the earlier Notification, dated March 29, 1946, to perform the duties and exercise the powers of the Commissioners.

3. During the periodical revisional assessment of the year 1950 in regard to the said premises, the valuation thereof was fixed at Rs. 1,800 and its quarterly municipal taxes at Rs. 146-4-0; but, as some additions were made to the said premises, on May 10, 1951, the valuation of the said premises was raised to Rs. 2,400 and its quarterly municipal taxes were fixed at Rs. 195. On November 17, 1951, S. N. Sarkar, the Assistant Special Officer of the Municipality, issued a notice to the owner of the premises informing her that the assessment of her premises was proposed to be fixed as follows: House-tax Rs. 262-8-0, Latrine-tax Rs. 210 and water-tax Rs. 210 per quarter under S. 107 of the Act. On December 20, 1952, the appellant filed a petition against the proposed enhancement of taxes before the said Assistant Special Officer, but he rejected the petition. Thereafter, the assessment list was amended on January 10, 1952, enhancing the valuation of the holding in question to Rs. 8,400 and the quarterly municipal taxes to Rs. 682-8-0 Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1952 in the Court of the Third Munsif at Patna for a declaration that the alteration made by the Assistant Special Officer in the assessment list was invalid and without jurisdiction and that the Municipality was not entitled to realise the enhanced assessment. She also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from realising the said enhanced tax from her. To that suit the Patna Municipality was made the 1st defendant and the Administrator of Patna, the 2nd defendant. The learned Munsif held that the order passed by the Assistant Special Officer was valid and dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, held that the Assistant Special Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed under S. 107 (c) of the Act, as there was no fraud, misrepresentation or mistake when the periodical assessment was made and on that ground, he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Thereupon, the respondents preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Patna. A Division Bench of the Court held that after the supersession of the Municipality no committee could be constituted under S. 117 of the Act and that, therefore, the Special Officer, in the absence of any specific machinery to deal with such an application, had perfect jurisdiction to lay out his own machinery to dispose of the same. After holding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document