- (1.) Municipal Board, Saharanpur having obtained the certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India on 12th August, 1976, has filed this appeal. While granting the certificate, the High Court has observed that the concept and meaning of the words "common compound" used in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is required to be decided in this appeal. This appeal raises the same contentions which are raised in the Companion Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 1976 (reported in 1998 AIR SCW 3781), moved by the very same appellant - Municipal Board, Saharanpur against Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. wherein the High Court has granted a similar certificate of fitness. Even though the certificates are granted by the High Court on the common question in both these appeals and even though our decision of even date in Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 1976 will govern the present controversy, we deem it fit to highlight the facts particular to the present respondent and the other questions which were canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties before us in this appeal. BACKGROUND FACTS :
(2.) The respondent railway company which has now become defunct, had various immovable properties situated in one complex within the Saharanpur town. The appellant Municipal Board, duly constituted under the Act, sought to levy house tax and water-tax in connection with the buildings and lands of respondent railway company during the relevant years. The said taxes were sought to be levied under Section 128 (1) (i). The respondent railway co., functioning since 1905, had several properties in a vast contiguous area within the limits of the Municipal Board. They included the railway station, a children's park, a canteen, a dispensary, administrative offices, rest-houses, out-houses, officers' bungalows etc. The appellant Board issued a notice to the railway company in 1960, assessing the properties to tax on buildings and also to water-tax. The appellant Board determined the annual value with reference to clause (a) of Section 140 of the Act and in doing so it treated all the buildings as one unit and all the land in the area as appurtenant to the buildings. A number of objections were raised by the respondent railway company but they were rejected by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. The railway company appealed against the order of the Executive Officer to the District Magistrate under Section 160 of the Act. The District Magistrate remanded the case back for proper calculation of the house tax and directed that the general rate should not be applied to all the buildings but the building should be divided in such a way as to arrive at a fair rate. The respondent company, on remand, had again submitted to the Executive Officer that certain buildings and approach roads should be excluded in calculating the area. It appears that there was some agreement between the parties regarding the total area to be considered for the purpose of taxation. But leaving aside that agreement, which no longer remains operative, several objections on merits were raised by the respondent railway company but they were all negatived. In further appeal, the District Magistrate, confirmed the order of the Executive Officer, subject to the modification that the cost of the buildings for the purpose of calculating annual value be reduced by 10 per cent by way of depreciation allowance. The tax on buildings was accordingly fixed at Rs. 3,957.75 paise. As regards the water-tax, the Magistrate considered that the Municipal Board was not entitled to levy water-tax on the Railway Company. This was on the basis that there was one hydrant within 600 feet from the railway area. But it appeared that between the hydrant and the railway area there lay some area of the Northern Railway surrounded by a wall. According to this interference therefore, the distance between the hydrant and the premises of the respondent was more than 600 feet in a zigzag manner and hence the water-tax could not be levied on this complex.
(3.) Against the said order of the District Magistrate, the respondent railway company filed a Writ Petition being 3508 of 1965 in so far as it referred to house tax while Writ Petition No. 3415 of 1965 was filed by the appellant Municipal Board urging that the Railway Company was liable to water-tax. Both these writ petitions were heard together by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, who took the view that the lands of the railway company were within the radius of 600 feet from the nearest water-stand point and hence they had to be considered for imposing water-tax on the buildings of the respondent railway company situated in these lands. To that extent, the learned single Judge set aside the reasoning and finding of the District Magistrate. However, the learned single Judge took the view that so far as the levy of water-tax was concerned, only those buildings in the complex of the respondent which were within the radius of 600 feet were liable to pay water-tax. It was also held that the assessment of water-tax had to be done building-wise and all the buildings should not be treated as one unit for that purpose. The assessment also had to be made as per Section 140 (a) of the Act. So far as levy of house tax was concerned, it was felt that all the buildings situated in the "common compound" could not be treated as one unit in a "common compound" and had to be taxed separately by computing the annual letting value of such buildings and their appurtenants. Resultantly both the writ petitions were partly allowed by the common order dated 27-2-1970. That gave rise to two special appeals moved by the respondent railway company being aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge, in so far as the same was partly against the respondent on both the writ petitions. While the appellant Board also filed a cross special appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge regarding water-tax. All the three appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22nd July, 1974. Against the said decision, as noted earlier, on the grant of certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, the present appeal is filed by the Board. RIVAL CONTENTIONS :;