Bhagwati, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave raises two questions relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows:
(2.) The respondents are rate-payers liable to pay property tax in respect of their lands and buildings situate within the limits of the erstwhile Municipal Borough of Dharwar now converted into the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Borough of Dharwar (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Borough) was at the material time governed by the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Chief Officer of the Municipal Borough prepared an assessment list for the official year 1951-52 containing revised valuation and assessment of the lands and buildings situated within the limits of the Municipal Borough and published it on 1st May, 1951 in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The respondents and several other rate-payers filed their objections against the valuation and assessment in the assessment list and consequent on the decisions on the objections, modifications were made in the assessment list and the assessment list so finalised was authenticated on 24th July, 1952. Since the authentication of the assessment list was made after the expiry of the official year, the respondents and other rate-payers took the view that the assessment list was void and inoperative and the Municipal Borough was not entitled to recover property tax at the revised rates which were higher than the rates charged in the previous official year. It seems, however, that from a few persons, whose names do not appear in the record, property tax in accordance with the revised rates was collected by the Municipal Borough. There was consequently an agitation amongst the rate-payers and a body called the Citizens Welfare Association championing the cause of the rate-payers addressed a communication dated 30th November, 1952 to the Director of Local Authorities requesting him to direct the Municipal Borough to refund the excess amount of property tax collected from the rate-payers, because according to them the levy and collection of property tax at the revised rates was illegal in view of the fact that the assessment list was authenticated only on 24th July, 1952 beyond the expiration of the official year for which the property tax was sought to be levied. The Director of Local Authorities by his reply dated 16th December, 1952 informed the Citizens Welfare Association that the levy of property tax under the authenticated assessment list was, according to him, perfectly valid. The President of the Municipal Borough thereafter issued a public notice dated 10th November, 1954 calling upon the rate-payers to "pay immediately all the tax still due from them and extend their full co-operation to the Municipal Borough. " Since the Municipal Borough was determined to recover the amount of property tax from the rate-payers at the enhanced rates appearing in the assessment list, the respondents, acting for and on behalf of themselves and other ratepayers, filed a suit against the Municipal Borough on 6th June, 1955, after giving notice dated 1st April, 1955 on the hypothesis that such notice was required to be given under Section 206A of the Act. The main reliefs claimed in the suit were, firstly, a declaration that the Municipal Borough was not entitled to recover property tax from the rate-payers at the revised rates since the assessment list was authenticated beyond the expiration of the official year and secondly, an order directing the Municipal Borough to refund the excess property tax recovered by it from the rate-payers.
(3.) The Municipal Borough in its written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation since it was not filed within six months of the accrual of the cause of action as required by Section 206A of the Act and it also disputed the claim of the rate-payers on merits on the ground that there was nothing in the Act which required that the assessment list should be authenticated before the expiration of the official year and that even if the assessment list was authenticated beyond the expiration of the official year, it did not have the effect of invalidating the assessment list.;