JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner, the Kesar Sugar Works Limited, Baheri, has challenged the imposition and assessment of water tax on its lands and buildings for the period 1-4-1964 to 31-3-1969 at the rate of Rs. 2,750/- per annum.

2. On September 20, 1966, a notice under Section 143 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act was sent to the petitioner company, proposing to fix the annual value of its lands and buildings at Rs. 75,000/- and assessing it to a water tax at the rate of Rs. 3,750/- per annum. On October 19, 1966, the petitioner filed objections to this notice. The `main objection, with which we are now concerned, was that those of the buildings, which were not within a radius of 200 yards from the nearest municipal standpipe, could not be assessed to water tax and that those buildings, which were within the prescribed radius of 200 yards were of a rental value of only Rs. 205/- per annum and the water tax could be imposed and assessed on this amount. It was alleged in the objection that there were separate and distinct compounds, i.e., the factory compound and two separate residential compounds in the factory area, that each building or set of buildings in the said compounds was separately and distinctly enclosed by fencing or compound wall and that there were only two blocks of five quarters each and a motor garage which were within 200 yards of the municipal stand-pipe and which alone could be assessed to water tax. By this order dated June 4, 1968, the Assessing Officer of the Municipal Board rejected these objections, holding that the factory building was one unit having several buildings in one compound. He further held that all the buildings were part and parcel of the factory which included the factory and the residential accommodation for its employees. On these findings, he came to the conclusion that, since a part of the building was within the prescribed radius, the entire buildings were liable to be assessed. He assessed the annual land and buildings value at Rs. 55,000/- and the water tax at Rs. 2,750 per annum. Against this order, the petitioner company preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The main grounds raised in the appeal were that the factory with its plant and machinery has got a separate, distinct and independent existence, being surrounded by a pukhta boundary wall and, since no portion of its compound fell within 200 yards from the municipal water stand-pipe, no tax could be imposed on this compound and that the entire factory area could not be treated as one unit. The Collector, Bareilly, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same on June 23, 1969. Before him it was admitted that the entire property was situated within the municipality and belonged to the petitioner. After considering the matter before him, he held that the property consisted of a number of buildings and formed one compound and that the portions were not separate from one another by land of any other person. He accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the assessing authority. The orders of these two authorities and other similar orders passed in respect of the other assessment years are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that those of the buildings, which were beyond a radius of 200 yards from the municipal stand-pipe, could not be assessed to water tax and that it was not permissible to treat the entire factory area as one unit for purposes of water tax. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Sec. 128 (1) (x) empowers a municipal board to impose water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both." This section permits a municipal board to impose water tax on all lands and buildings within the municipality. Sec. 129 of the Act places certain restrictions on the imposition of water tax. Since t