CHITALE,J. - (1.) THE petitioners in this case are residents of Nagpur. They have been paying municipal taxes viz. the property tax, water rate, conservancy tax and public latrines cess. Prior to March 2, 1951, Nagpur City had a municipality, whose affairs were managed by a Committee consisting of elected and other members. The said Committee was empowered by statute to levy some taxes on the residents of Nagpur in order to provide them with certain amenities. The Municipal Act that was applicable before the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, came into force was the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (Act II of 1922). Section 66 of that Act empowered the Municipal Committee to impose various taxes including (1) property tax, (2) latrine or conservancy tax, (3) tax for the construction and maintenance of public latrines and (4) water rate for water supplied by the Committee. The Nagpur Municipal Committee had imposed these taxes in the city. The City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, hereinafter called 'the Corporation Act', received the assent of the Governor General on January 22, 1950, and was brought into force on March 2, 1951. The provisions of Section 114 of the Corporation Act are similar to those of Section 66 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Act'; Sub -section (3) of Section 114 of the Corporation Act corresponds to Section 71 of the Municipal Act. It is common ground that the above -said taxes are to be assessed on the gross annual letting value of buildings and lands. Section 119 of the Corporation Act defines the expressions 'the annual value of land' and 'the annual value of buildings'; it also prescribes the mode of ascertaining the annual value of lands and buildings. It is not disputed before us that in the Corporation Act the expressions 'the annual value' and 'the annual letting value' are used in the same sense; they are synonymous. The petitioners allege that the imposition of taxes, their reduction, alteration or enhancement is exclusively within the authority of the Corporation, it is not merely an executive act, and it has to be done by the Corporation itself. The petitioners further allege that an exception seems to have been made in the Corporation Act in the case of property tax; but so far as the other taxes are concerned, the authority to impose, reduce or enhance them still remains with the Corporation and is regulated by rules made under Section 71 of the Municipal Act, as no fresh rules have been made under Section 114(3) of the Corporation Act. These rules, according to the petitioners, provide for valuation, assessment and the revision thereof by the Corporation itself. The petitioners further allege that in about 1958 revision of assessment was undertaken by the Corporation Authorities and the Chief Executive Officer began to act under Section 124 of the Corporation Act. The function of finding out of the annual letting value was entrusted to an officer, called 'Assessor'. He increased the assessment and issued notices under Section 127 of the Corporation Act, the ground of increase given in the notices being 'the general rise in rate'. (See para. 7 of the petition). On receipt of these notices, tax -payers filed their objections under Section 128 of the Corporation Act. These objections, according to the petitioners, should have been heard by the Chief Executive Officer himself. He, however, did not hear them himself. Temporary officers were appointed to hear and decide these objections. According to the petitioners, these officers were not delegated the powers vested in the Chief Executive Officer under Section 129 of the Corporation Act or under the rules. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the determination of the objections by the said officers was ultra vires and of no effect.
(2.) THE petitioners further mention that some tax -payers appealed to the Additional District Judge, Nagpur. Against his decisions, the Corporation preferred revision applications. These revision applications were heard by Mr. Justice Abhyankar, who held that the necessary powers were not delegated to the assessor and the procedure adopted for the reassessment was not sanctioned by the statutory provisions and was, therefore, illegal. In view of these findings, Mr. Justice Abhyankar held that the Corporation was not entitled to recover the increased taxes from the tax -payers in those cases. The petitioners allege that in spite of Mr. Justice Abhyankar's decision, the Corporation issued bills for taxes, under Section 154 of the Corporation Act, based on the revolution which, according to them, was made without jurisdiction and illegally. Thereafter notices of demand were issued under Section 155 of the Corporation Act and tax -payers were threatened with coercive process. In some cases warrants were actually issued and taxes were realised. The petitioners further allege that objections to the notices of demand stating that the revaluation was without jurisdiction and hence the assessment was illegal were submitted under Section 156(1)(b) of the Corporation Act, but instead of investigating and deciding those objections demands are made by the Corporation. The petitioners further allege that even in the cases in which objections were decided, the tax -payers were not heard and, therefore, that determination of the objections is illegal, being opposed to principles of natural justice.
(3.) WITH regard to water rate, conservancy tax and public latrines cess, the petitioners allege that according to the rules in force, the power to make a revaluation and re -assessment of these taxes lay solely with the Corporation and the Corporation alone could exercise that power. In fact, however, the Corporation did not exercise that power by passing any resolution directing revaluation and re -assessment of the said taxes. The petitioners allege that the Chief Executive Officer did it on his own authority. According to the petitioners, the assessment made in 1958 -60 for the purpose of increasing water rate, conservancy tax and public latrines cess is, therefore, illegal.;