D.P.MOHAPATRA - (1.) THIS case calls in question the vires of proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 127-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and the levy and collection of property tax in respect of the buildings owned by the appellant.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated as under : THE appellant and respondents 4 to 7 are joint owners of 13 separate items of house properties bearing No. 56/2(1) to 56(2)/13 situated in ward No. 15 of Raigarh Municipal area. THE assessment proceeding for the purpose of levying property tax was initiated under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (M. P. Act No. 37 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Municipal Council, Raigarh, respondent No. 2 herein. THE Municipality purporting to invoke the proviso to the section 127-A(2) of the Act aggregated the annual letting value of all the buildings and levied property tax on the deemed annual letting value so aggregated. THE assessment order was followed by the demand notice. Feeling aggrieved by the levy and collection of property tax in the manner aforementioned, the appellant and respondents 4 to 7 preferred appeal under Section 139 of the Act before the Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and quashed the assessment order and the demand notice. On a revision petition being filed by the Municipality the District Judge, Raigarh allowed the revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority and confirmed the order of assessment made by the concerned authority. The appellant and the respondents 4 to 7 filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the order of assessment, inter alia, on the grounds that it was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. They also challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-clause (b) of Section 127(A)(2) of the Act. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners including the challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 127(A)(2) and confirmed the assessment order of the municipality and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court placed reliance mainly on the decision of this Court in Administrator Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dahankar, Advocate, (1992) 1 SCC 361 : (1992 AIR SCW 2081 : AIR 1992 SC 1846) and its own decision in the case of Leelawati Mishra v. President, Municipal Committee, Mungaoli, 1990 MPLJ 28. Thereafter one of the petitioners in the Writ Petition, Mathuram Agrawal, filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) WHEN the case was taken up by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, (1992 AIR SCW 2081 : AIR 1992 SC 1846) (Supra) decided by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court construing Section 127(1)(2) of the Act the question as to the constitutional validity of that proviso arises for consideration. Taking note of the said submission the Bench passed the order dated 13-2-95, relevant portion of which reads as follows : "In view of the construction made by a Bench of three learned Judges in the above quoted decision, the question of considering the constitutional validity of the provision does arise. However, the question for consideration also is whether the alternative construction which would support the constitutional validity of the provision is to be preferred and is also available on the language of the statute. It is, therefore, appropriate that the matter is considered by a Bench of five learned Judges." The question that arises for consideration is when several items of properties (houses, buildings or lands) within the municipality, the annual letting value of each of which does not exceed Rs. 1,800.00 per annum, are owned by one person, then, is the owner liable to pay property tax for such properties.;