Under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, a municipality can only levy distress on a property if the notice of demand has been served on the owner of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sending the bills and notices to the owner by registered post is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of personal service.

( 1 ) IN this appeal we are concerned with the right of the erstwhile Kotrung Municipality to realise, in the facts and circumstances of this case, by distress, the alleged dues on account of municipal tax for the period from 1st quarter of 1958-59 to the end of 4th quarter of 1962-63 and license fee for the period from 1st half of 1958-59 to the 2nd half year of 1962-63. It appears that holding No. 1, Shankaripara Ghat Lane in Ward No. 1, Kotrung, was originally acquired by the Corporation of Calcutta for the purpose of manufacturing; bricks to meet the requirements of the said Corporation of Calcutta. Subsequently, the Corporation of Calcutta leased out the said property and one Kishorimohan Banerjee, became a lessee thereof. It has been alleged that Sri Girija Prasad Paul, hereinafter, referred to as the petitioner No. 1 became a sub-lessee under the said Kishori Mohan Banerjee and it has been further asserted that he became a direct lessee under the Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality in respect of the aforesaid holding. It has been further alleged that Friends' Bureau, which is a registered partnership firm and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner No. 2, is working the brick field in the aforesaid holding since 1st of November, 1960, as a licensee under the petitioner No. 1. The Corporation of Calcutta is the owner of the aforesaid holding in the records of the municipality. By a notification issued the Kotrung Municipality has been amalgamated with the Uttarpara Municipality and is now known as Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality, hereinafter referred to as the appellant. By a notice dated 17th of July, 1963 fixed in the aforesaid holding the appellant purported to attach 1,25,000 bricks on account of the alleged arrears of holding rates in respect of the aforesaid holding for the period from 1st quarter of 1958-59 to the end of the 4th quarter of 1962-63 and for the alleged arrears of licence fee for the period from the first half of 1958-59 to the end of the second half year of 1962-63, The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the occupiers in respect of the aforesaid holding as contemplated under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and the Corporation of Calcutta Is the owner thereof. The petitioners thereupon moved this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the petition it was alleged that in accordance with Section 132 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 the Corporation of Calcutta being the owner of the holding was liable in respect of the same. It was further alleged that no bill or notice of demand, as required under the provisions of the said Act had been served on the Corporation of Calcutta. It was further alleged that no notice of demand and no hills in respect of the dues had been served upon the petitioners. It was further alleged that the petitioners were not liable for licence fees because the petitioners had always been ready and willing to pay fee for trade licence and had asked for the issuance of trade licence but they were refused and as such they were not liable. In those circumstances it was contended that the appellant was not entitled to levy any distress or to sell the said goods belonging to the petitioners and lying in the said holding. A rule nisi was issued and after affidavits and further affidavits were filed, the matter came up for hearing before D. Basu. J. By an order passed and iudgment delivered by D. Basu. J. , on the 10th of December. 1968 the learned Judge has made the rule absolute and the appellant was restrained from taking any further steps in pursuance of the impugned notice and the appellant was directed to refund the amount of sale proceeds kept in the custody of the Municipality as per order of this Court dated 14th August, 1963. But the appellant was given liberty to proceed afresh according to law. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that there has not been service of the notice of demand on the Corporation of Calcutta in accordance with the provi