- (1.) The Municipal Board, Saharanpur, appellant herein, has filed this appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on a certificate of fitness granted to it by the High Court for appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The said certificate is granted on the ground that a question of law arises as to what is the concept and meaning of the words "common compound" used in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted at the outset to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Municipal Board. BACKDROP FACTS :
(2.) During the relevant period from 1-10-1959 to 31-3-1960, the respondent company was sought to be taxed by the appellant Municipality by way of water-tax levied under Section 128, sub-section (1) (x) of the Act. The case of the appellant was that the respondent company had erected a factory with a large number of ancillary buildings and residential houses occupied by its officers and staff within the municipal limits of the appellant Board and that the entire complex of building owned by the respondent company was surrounded by a high wall for security reasons. The appellant Board raised the bills of water-tax on 13th August, 1959 calling upon the respondent to note that as a result of a public water stand pipe, the company's property bearing all factory buildings situated on Cigarette Factory Khalasi Line, being within a radius of 600 feet from the said pipe had come within the taxable area with effect from the month of May, 1959 for the purpose of imposition of water-tax. The respondent-company, by its communication dated 19th December, 1959 objected to the said imposition of water-tax and submitted that the company was not liable to pay water-tax bills for the period from 1-10-1959 to 31-3-1960, as according to the respondent company, the bills were incorrectly made out in that they included all residential and factory buildings. It was further submitted that these buildings were not in a "common compound" and the residential bungalows should be treated as separate units in the same way as they have been treated as separate units in the case of house tax assessment. The respondent-company further submitted that water-tax bills might be reissued for only those buildings of the company that fell within the radius of 600 feet from the water stand pipe and the company was objecting to pay water-tax on buildings which did not fall within a radius of 600 feet from the water stand pipe. The aforesaid communication by the respondent-company did not find favour with the appellant. The appellant, by its letter dated 29th December, 1959, informed the respondent that in view of Explanations (a) and (b) of Section 129 of the Act, all "buildings" and "common compounds" were assessable to water-tax and, therefore, the bills had been correctly worked out against the company and the tax was payable.
(3.) This resulted into an appeal by the respondent under Section 160 of the Act to the District Magistrate, who was the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent's houses situated in the company's complex could not be said to have been situated in a "common compound" as the term 'building' defined in Explanation (a) to Section 129 of the Act required a 'compound to be a common appurtenance of several buildings'. On the aforesaid reasoning, it was found that the whole plot of land of the company containing number of factory buildings and residential buildings could not be treated as one unit for the purpose of water-tax and that only those buildings and plots of land which came within the radius of 600 feet of the nearest water stand pipe from where water was made available to public by the Board could bear the burden of water-tax and accordingly, only three bungalows which came within the radius of 600 feet could be assessed to water-tax by the appellant Board and not all the residential bungalows and factory buildings which were outside the radius of 600 feet from the water stand pipe. The company's appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the appellant was directed to issue fresh water-tax bills in the light of that order. This resulted into a writ petition by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The learned single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, after hearing the contesting parties, came to the conclusion that all the buildings belonging to the respondent-company were standing in a "common compound" (even though that the company might be subdivided into different sections), because the entire complex was surrounded by a common wall. Relying on the map which was supplied by the respondent-company, it was held that the said map clinched the arguments of the appellant which showed that inside the residential area there was one road which was undeniably appurtenant to the factory, since it led from the main municipal road to the gate of the factory proper, and there was another road which provided access to the various residential houses and was, therefore, a common appurtenance of all those houses. The first of these roads consequently had to be treated as the "compound" of the factory, as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act; and similarly the second road was the compound of the residences. Both these roads started from a point quite close to the municipal stand pipe; and a substantial portion of both the roads was lying well within the radius of 600 feet measured from the stand pipe. Hence, the appellant was entitled to raise the water-tax bills connected with all the structures situated within the compound. The writ petition, was accordingly allowed and the order of the learned District Magistrate was set aside.;