V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution presented by one Lal Mohan Banerji, owner of two houses Nos. 38 Park Road and 39 Thornhill Road, within the Municipality of Allahabad directed against the Municipal Board of Allahabad.
(2.) It appears that these two houses were assessed to house tax and water tax and according to the quinquennial assessment made in 1945 the total amount of tax payable in respect of these two houses on account of the house tax and water tax was an annual sum of Rs. 161/12/ - . A fresh quinquennial assessment took place in 1950 and during these proceedings the board gave a notice to the Petitioner under Sec. 143(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act of enhancement of tax on these two houses to a total sum of Rs. 221/5/ - . Thereupon the Petitioner filed two separate objections under Sec. 143(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act against the enhancement on the 11th February, 1950. For a decision of these objections, the officer empowered to decide the objections fixed the 30th of March, 1950 and sent a notice of that date to the Petitioner. The notice was admittedly dated 27th March, 1950 and was posted under a certificate of posting on the 29th March, 1950. The Petitioner's case is that it was received by him for the first time on the 3rd April, 1950 when the date fixed giving him an opportunity to appear in person or through an agent to be heard in connection with the objections had already expired. The Petitioner, therefore, refused to accept the notice as the notice had been sent without any postage stamp and the Petitioner was required to pay to the postal authorities the amount due for the stamp and the penalty. On the 4th April, 1950, the Petitioner wrote to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board mentioning that the notice fixing the date 30th March, 1950 was presented to him by the postal peon on the 3rd April, 1950 and thus he had been deprived of being heard. This letter was completely ignored by the Municipal Board and its Executive Officer. According to the various counter -affidavits filed on behalf of the Municipal Board, Mukund Behari, Tax Inspector and Ram Deo Singh, Additional Tax Inspector went to the Petitioner several times between January and March, 1951 and explained the bills and demanded tax at the enhanced rate. The Petitioner has denied that these persons visited him as alleged. It, however, appears that some time about the 30th March, 1951 the Petitioner was approached by an Inspector of the Municipal Board and asked to pay the Municipal taxes in respect of his houses in accordance with the previous assessment of 1945 and thereupon the Petitioner paid the sum of Rs. (sic)/12/ - through a cheque. This allegation made by the Petitioner has been admitted on behalf of the Municipal Board with a rider which reads.
(3.) "excepting that the Inspector agreed to Shri L.M. Banerji to make the payment according to the assessment of 1945". It is difficult to construe this as meaning that the Inspector had not demanded the sum in accordance with the assessment of 1945 as alleged in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, as there is no denial with regard to that assertion of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has further stated that, after he had given the cheque, he received a receipt dated the 31st March, 1951 for the sum of Rs. 161/12/ with the words "in full/ part payment of bill...dated...." This is also admitted on behalf of the Municipal Board. There is a further allegation that the Petitioner was induced to believe that the matter had been settled once for all and this fact is also admitted on behalf of the Municipal Board. Thereafter the Municipal Board took steps to realise the tax due for the subsequent year, April 1, 1951 to March 31st 1952 and again demand was made at the enhanced rate. The Petitioner first paid at the old rate by means of a cheque which was returned. Subsequently he sent to same amount in cash at the rate of Rs. 161/12/ - per annum and that was accepted by the Board in part -payment of the demand made. Later, the Municipal Board cut off the water connection of the house No. 38, Park Road in the absence of the Petitioner on the 31st March, 1952 and thereupon this petition was moved on behalf of the Petitioner on the 9th April, 1952. An interim order was passed by a Bench of this Court directing the Municipal Board to restore the water connection, and, presumably the connection was restored. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of (sic) quashing the proceedings for the enhancement of the assessment of his houses and a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Board to restore the water connection.;