In revising house taxes, the Gram Panchayat must comply with the provisions of the Rent Control Act and determine the annual rental value based on the fair rent fixed under the Act.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 5 rate payers of Sattenapalli Gram Panchayat have filed a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the rate payers of the said panchayat questioning the revision of house taxes in the Panchayat in the year 1962, on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unenforceable and have sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Gram Panchayat from giving effect to the said general revision.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the Panchayat adopted the annual rental value as its basis for the fixation of houses taxes in which rental value itself is being calculated on the basis of the actual rents realised during the year. This basis was adopted both for the owner occupied houses as well as the tenant occupied houses. It is their contention that Sattenapalli is a town to which the Madras Buildings ( Lease and Rent ) Control Act as modified by the Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 ( herein after referred to compendiously as the Rent Control Act ) applies and therefore the fair rent realised for the houses alone could be taken as the annual rental value of the building both for the owner occupied and the tenant occupied houses. The Revision Officer ignoring the provisions of the Rent Control Act enhanced the house taxes by more than 300 per cent over the 1957-58 taxes. While the income from house taxes was Rs. 29076. 24 during the year 1957-58, as a result of the impugned revision the house tax has been increased to Rupees 69424. 32. In paragraph 9 of the plaint instances of enhancement in 11 different wards of the Gram Panchayat were given which show an increase ranging from 300 % to 1000 %. They have also alleged various other irregularities and failure to comply with the provisions of law in making the present revision. It is not necessary to note these facts in detail having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties in this appeal.

( 3 ) THE Gram Panchayat contended that all the provisions of law and the rules regulating the revision of taxes have been complied with and that the revision of taxes itself is on a correct assessment of the rental value of the houses and as such it does not call for interference by a Civil Court. The other plea as to want of valid notice as required under Section 107 of the village Panchayat Act was also taken but was not pressed at the hearing of the second appeal before me.

( 4 ) THE learned District Munsif framed the following issues : 1. Whether the general revision made in 1962 is not in compliance with the procedure prescribed ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations prayed for ? 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice under Section 107 of the Village Panchayat Act? 4. Whether assessment should be made with reference to Act 25 of 1949 ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? 6. To what relief are plaintiffs entitled ? The trial Court held that the general revision made in 1962 is not shown to be " not in compliance with the prescribed procedure or with the Act " and in that view held that the plaintiffs are neither entitled to the declaration nor to the injunction prayed for. It was conceded before the learned District Munsif that the suit was not bad for want of notice under Sec. 107 of the Village Panchayat Act as the provisions of that section are attracted only in cases of claims for damages and not to a case of declaration and injunction. In the result the suit was dismissed.

( 5 ) ON appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge framed the following points as arising for disposal of appeal. "1. Whether the suit is maintainable by the Civil Court ? 2. Whether the revision of taxes in 1962 made by the defendant Panchayat is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and exhorbitant ? Having refused to the judgments of this Court reported in Manikyam v. Commr. Kakinada Municipality, 1959-2 Andh WR 492

Click Here to Read the rest of this document