A.S. Bopanna, J.

The appellants herein who are licencees under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for providing telecommunication services to the general public had approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions from which the present appeals arise. In the said writ petitions, the petitioners had called in question the demands raised against the petitioners by the respective Local Bodies. The demands had been raised in respect of the erection of the base trans-receiver station. The contention on behalf of the petitioners therein was that the Municipal authorities/Local Bodies have no authority to make physical demand in respect of the telecommunication towers installed. It was their contention that the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, Panchayath Raj Act and Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act does not provide for the imposition of property tax, licence fee, permission fee etc., on telecommunication towers.

2. The learned Single Judge though has accepted the contention that there is no provision to collect the permission fee and installation charges in respect of communication towers has thereafter held that the structure viz., the telecommunication tower answers the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2(3) and 2(1-A) of the respective Acts. Though the demand notices were quashed, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the quantified amount as fixed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is to be adopted by the other local bodies. A further direction was also issued for framing such law/rules in this regard. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge are before this Court in these intra-Court appeals.

3. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel, Sri Shailesh K. Kapoor, Col. Bhupinder Singh, Sri Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Indra Kumar, learned senior counsel and the respective learned counsel for the other respondents and perused the appeal papers.

4. The sum and substance of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants is that the installation of the towers is for the wireless communication system as provided under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1855. The licence is granted under the Act by the Ministry of Communication and IT, pursuant to which a licence agreement is entered into which would govern the nature of installation of the equipments as per the rights guaranteed to the petitioners. The communication apparatus in question though called a tower is a ‘post’ to which the equipments are fixed and as such the same cannot be considered as ‘such structure’ which is included in the definition of ‘building’ as contained in Sections 2(3) and 2(1-A) of the respective Acts governing the local bodies. The only right under the said Acts to the Local Bodies is to impose tax on land and buildings and as such, the telecommunication equipment which does not answer the definition cannot be taxed. There is no other provision in the said Act which empowers the Local Bodies to raise a demand, more particularly, when the permission granted to the appellants is under a Central enactment. In this regard, it is also contended that the telephones, wireless or otherwise is indicated at Entry 31 to List 1 of the VII Schedule and therefore, the Local Bodies in any event cannot rely upon the State Law to raise demands. Elaborating the said submissions and by placing reliance on the decisions which would be referred to hereafter, the appellants contend that the respondents cannot raise any demand in respect of the same.

5. On the other hand, the gist of the contention on behalf of the respondents is that the Entry 49 in List 2 to Schedule VII of the Constitution of India relates to taxes on lands and buildings. Therefore, the State legislature is empowered to make laws for imposition of tax on lands and buildings. In this regard,