The judgment establishes the liability of lands for water rate and property tax under the C.P. Municipalities Act, emphasizing the statutory duties of the municipality and the absence of prohibition against double taxation.

1. These are two references made by the Extra Assistant Commissioner with revenue appellate powers, Nagpur under Section 83(2), C.P. Municipalities Act. References cover four separate questions arising out of the assessment of water rate and property tax. It is convenient to take these matters separatel

2. With regard to the water rate the questions which have been referred are these:

(1) Whether agricultural lands lying within municipal limits of Nagpur, and already assessed to the land revenue under the C.P. Land Revenue Act are liable to be assessed to Water tax under Clause (b) of Section 66, C.P. Municipalities Act, and the bye-laws there under and

(2) Whether a private well belonging to the private individuals but used by the publics within the municipal limits is liable to be assessed with water rate under the above provisions.

3. The first question as framed is a limited one, but the arguments ranged over a considerable field involving adjudication on facts. It was pointed out to the learned Counsel that the reference does not involve any adjudication on facts, and the question is, therefore, considered purely as a matter of law irrespective of facts or equity involved in any particular case.

4. The power to assess water rate is claimed by the municipality by virtue of Section 66(1), Clause (k) which reads thus:

A committee may, from time to time, and subject to the provisions of this chapter, impose in the whole or in any part of the municipality any of the following taxes, for the purposes of this Act, namely...(k) a water-rate, where water is supplied by the committee.

5. At the outset, an argument was advanced that the assessment of water-rate is dependent upon the supply of water by the Committee, and admittedly as these agricultural lands are not receiving a supply of water from the municipality they cannot be assessed to the general water-rate. The assessment of water-rate is not dependent upon the consumption of the water by the assessed but upon the supply of water by the municipality in the area under its administration. Under Section 50(1)(k) the municipality is under a duty of providing a supply water proper are sufficient to prevent danger to the health of the inhabitants and their domestic cattle. Where the municipality fulfils its statutory duties rules have been framed to enable it to collect water-rate from the public. Under the rules framed under this section, it has been provided inter alia that water-rate is assessable even on every building or land which may not be provided a supply from the municipal waterworks but which is situated within 200 yards from a public water standard or main pipe. Where the building or land is rented the amount of water-rate is calculated on the basis of a schedule given in the Rules, and where the building or land is not rented but is occupied by the owner himself it is calculated on the annual letting value.

6. It is admitted by the assessees that the water standards or main pipes are situated within 200 yards of their lands. They, however, contend that they are not liable to the water-rate because (a) the land is agricultural land and (b) they do not take any water from the main pipes. The question of not taking water from the main pipes was considered in Brahmin Mitra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipality of Ahmedabad, 1940 AIR(Bom) 269 by Beaumont C.J. and the reasoning there is applicable here also. It njakes no difference whether water is taken or not so long as the water-main, pipe or standard is found within 200 yards of the land in question.

The words ''where water is supplied by the committee'' do not refer to Supply of water' to o individuals but refer to committees which have undertaken the supply of water to the areas controlled by them. A comparison of the other clauses of this section shows this clearly. The learned Counsel for the assessees questioned the wisdom of charging a tax from persons who do not avail themselves of the privilege but i