Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1468
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, JJ.
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ (Tax) Petition Nos. 544, 582, 624, 625 and 626 of 2016, decided on 14th September, 2016)
Counsel :
Arun K. Singh Deshwal and Arun Kumar Singh-I for the Petitioners; C.S.C. and Satish Mandhyan for the Respondents.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 243-P and 243-Q—U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916—Sections 160, 153, 143, 141-A, 140, 128 and 2(17)—House Tax or Water Tax—Assessment—Procedure—Necessary for assessing House Tax and Water Tax whether followed by NPP or not—Buildings described in Section 140 (1) (a) can safely be termed as ‘public buildings’, ‘commercial buildings’, ‘industrial buildings’ or ‘non-residential buildings’—Admittedly, wherever provisions of 1916 Act talk of manner etc. as prescribed, such has not been prescribed earlier under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder meaning of ward 'prescribed' has been given the same meaning as under Section 4 of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 i.e. prescribed by Rules made under the Act—NPP due to its illegal and hurried act has caused disputed assessments—E.O. has to be authorized by Municipality in respect of action to be taken under Sections 141 and 142 and otherwise EO had no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on its own for preparation of areawise rental rates or assessment list and get it published—Preparation and publication of rental list by EO vide letter dated 12.10.2012 by simply referring to G.O. dated 18.3.2011, is patently without jurisdiction—Without framing Rules laying down manner and other things, not permissible to NPP to determine monthly rental rates or assessment of any building or land for purpose of levy of House Tax or Water Tax—Impugned assessments made by NPP and demand raised against petitioners quashed—Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed against respondents. [Paras 29 to 88]
Result; Petitions Allowed.
By the Court.—In all these writ petitions, common questions of law are involved therefore same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the purpose of factual matrix, we find it appropriate to give brief facts of all writ petitions separately since that will help in understanding the dispute and the manner in which respondents’ authorities have acted and given rise to this bunch of writ petitions.
Writ Tax No. 544 of 2016
3. There are two petitioners Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Amar Singh. Petitioner-1 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal owns two storey building at plot No. 2118, situate at Mohalla Mohammad Mah Nai Basti, Shikohabad, District Firozabad. He also owns a small factory at plot No. 1461 at Sikohabad. Petitioner-2, Amar Singh owns a building at plot No. 1712 at Mohammad Mah, Sikohabad, District Firozabad where he is running a hotel called as ‘Mayur Hotel’.
4. Shikohabad has a Nagar Palika Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ‘NPP’) which is a ‘Municipality’ as defined under Section 2 (9) of The Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act, 1916’) read with Article 243-P (e) and 243-Q (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. Tax Assessment Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘TAO’) of NPP sent notice dated 28.3.2015 to petitioner-1 under Sections 140/158/168/173 of U.P. Act, 1916 informing that in respect of House No. 2118, for Financial Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.Y.’) 2012-13 to 2014-15 he is liable to pay house tax at Rs. 57,600/-, Rs. 69,120/- and Rs. 69,120/- respectively. Petitioner-1, if had any objection, may file the same within 15 days alongwith sanctioned map and copy of sale-deed. Further, petitioner-1 was required to deposit house tax of Rs. 69,120/- for F.Y. 2014-15 by 31.3.2015, and in respect to F.Ys., 2012-13 and 2013-14, within 15 days else would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Similarly in respect of plot No. 1461, petitioner-1 received notice dated 18.3.2015 demanding House Tax for three F.Ys. as under:
Serial Number
F.Y.
Amount of House Tax
1
2012-13
Rs. 52,272/-
2
2013-14
Rs. 62,724/-
3
2014-15
Rs. 62,724/-
5. Petitioner-2 was also served a notice dated 21.5.2014 under Sections 140, 147, 148, 158, 168, 173 of U.P. Act, 1916 with the direction to pay house tax in respect of House No. 1712, Mayur Hotel, which is a commercial building, for F.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the tune of Rs. 2,59,200/-. Petitioner-2 filed objection dated 30.6.2014. Thereafter Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘EO’) passed order dated 24.7.2014 determining House Tax afresh, by treating open area as 1500 square foot and covered area as 6000 square foot, as under:
Serial Number
F.Y.
Amount of House Tax
1
2012-13
Rs. 71,832/-
2
2013-14
Rs. 86,184/-
3
2014-15
Rs. 8,6184/-
The aforesaid amount was required to be deposited within 15 days.
6. Petitioners submitted representations/objections dated 11.8.2014 and 3.9.2015 stating that the area taken by NPP for the purpose of computing House Tax has been wrongly shown as there was no survey of property in dispute and further amount of house tax has been arbitrarily demanded inasmuch as earlier house tax paid by petitioner-1 in respect of House No. 2118 was only Rs. 500/- per annum which now has been increased to Rs. 57,600/- and Rs. 69,120/- respectively. They also pointed out that up to F.Y. 2012-13, required competent authority of ‘NPP’ to inform the details and relevant material on the basis of whereof, area was determined and House Tax was computed.
7. Petitioner-1 in respect of House No. 2118, furnished copy of map of the building showing area of building as under:
¼v½ O;olkf;d Hkou dk fooj.k ¼Hkwry½
¼c½
