A local authority or a tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on jurisdictional facts.

Sahai, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant Municipal Corporation arises out of a suit for declaration that the order dated the 28th September, 1951, passed by the Special Officer of the Patna Municipality (as it then was) enhancing the valuation and assessment of Holding No. 137, Circle No. 44, of Mahalla Ranighat, under Section 107(1)(c) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, VII of 1922 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act), is illegal and ultra vires; and also for a decree for refund of Rs. 102/8/- said to have been realised from the plaintiff by the Municipality in excess of the legitimate quarterly tax. It has come before this Bench as an important question of law arises for decision.

2. The facts, which are relevant for the purposes of this judgment, may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs case is that, at the time of the general assessment of 1950, the house standing in the holding was unoccupied, and one Mr. Iftakhar Ahmad, a Deputy Magistrate, assessed it to a quarterly municipal tax of Rs. 48/12/-. The plaintiff, thereafter, made improvements in the house by providing water and electric connections. He then let it out on rent to Shri Pratapdhari Sinha, an Advocate, on a-monthly rental of Rs. 75/-.

On the 8th January, 1951, he received a notice from the municipality under Section 7(2) read with, section I07(1)(c) of the Act, stating that it was proposed to enhance the valuation of the holding, and that the plaintiff could file an objection. The plain-tiff, accordingly, filed an objection which was heard by the Special Officer of the municipality, who by his order dated the 28th September, 1951, rejected his objection and assessed the holding on the basis of a monthly rental of Rs. 155/- to a tax oi Rs. 151/4/- per quarter. The plaintiff paid under protest a sum of Rs. 151/4/- as quarterly tax for October to December, 1951, which amounted to a payment of Rs. 102/8/- in excess of the tax legally payable as having been assessed at the general assessment.

3. The defendants case is that the holding was let out to Pratapdhari Sinha on a monthly rental-of Rs. 155/- and not Rs. 75/~. The Special Officer himself inspected the holding, and he came to the conclusion that an incorrect valuation and assessment had been made by reason of fraud and misrepresentation.

4. The Additional Munsif, 3rd Court, Patna, who tried the suit, held that Fratapdhari Siriha paid a rent of Rs. 75/- per month, that there was ncn fraud, misrepresentation or mistake at the time o± the general assessment of 1950, and that the municipality was not justified in taking action under Section 107(1)(c). He, therefore, decreed the suit with costs.

5. The defendant took an appeal to the District Court, and that appeal was heard by the Additional Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Patna. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the findings of the learned Munsif, and held that the defendant had not made out a case of fraud or misrepresentation which alone would have entitled it to revise the assessment, and that it had not even pleaded any mistake. He further held that the plaintiffs objection should have been disposed of by a committee constituted under Sec.117 of the Act and not by the Special Officer alone who could, under Sec.386, merely exercise and perform the powers and duties of the commissioners. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal.

6. This appeal was placed for hearing, in the first instance, before a learned single Judge of this Court. It was argued before him that the authority of the decisions of this Court in Darbhanga Municipality V/s. Jyotindranath, ILR 23 Pat 862: (AIR 1945 Pat 153), Arrah Municipality V/s. Jatendra Chandra, ILR 24 Pat 668: (AIR 1946 Pat 167) and Ram Chor Prasad V/s. Bakshi Rani Krishna Sinha, ILR 28 Pat 276: (AIR 1951 Pat 536) had been weakened by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Raj Krishna V/s. Section K. Shaw and Brothers, AIR 1951 SC 115. As the learned Judge thought that this raised an important