- (1.) This is a Defendant's appeal. The Plaintiff the Municipal Board of Agra, brought a suit against the Defendants to recover at the enhanced rate Rs. 242/10/1 arrears of house tax and 399/2/3 arrears of water rate, in all Rs. 641/12/3, for the period 1-10-39 to 31-3-44 in respect of the plaint property. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendants who were liable to pay the aforesaid arrears had not done so in spite of demands. The appealing Defendant (who is now represented by his heirs), being Defendant No. (1) in the suit, alone contested it. He pleaded that the property in dispute was legally assessed to house tax and water rate only at Rs. 39/9/7 six monthly. He pleaded that the enhanced assessed rates of 1937 were not binding on him as the enhancement and re assessment was without notice to him and was contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 143 of the UP Municipalities Act (Act II of 1916).
(2.) The learned Munsif held that the reassessment in the year 1937 was illegal. It accordingly decreed the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of only Rs. 17/3/1 according to the original rate.
(3.) There was an appeal by the Municipal Board to the Court below. There it was argued that the appealing Defendant Trilokinath Pandey was served with a notice before the reassessment of 1937 took place, as required by law. It also appears to have been argued that alternatively the firm Pandey Baldev Das and sons who were the occupiers, were served with the notice before enhancement, as required by the aforesaid section of the Municipalities Act. The finding of the trial Court is that no notice was personally served on Triloki Nath Pandey, the Defendant Appellant owner. The finding also is that no notice was served on the occupier. The Court below however upon the view that notice on the owner was only necessary if the owner was known, has held that since the owner was not known the failure to serve a personal notice on him would not invalidate the re-assessment. It appears that in the books of the Municipality the name of Pandya Baldev Das was entered and even though he was dead the names of his heir or heirs were not caused to be entered in the Municipal papers by the heirs and it was only in the year 1939 that the name of one Srimati Durga Bai was brought on to the Municipal records. The view of the Court below is that the Municipal Board could not be expected to know who were the heirs of Pandya Baldev Das and therefore, no personal notice was necessary and that the general notice sufficed. This position is disputed before me. Section 143 of the UP Municipalities Act (Act II of 1916) runs as follows: Objection to entries in list-(1) The Board shall at the same time give public notice of a date, not less than one month thereafter, when it will proceed to consider the valuation and assessments entered therein and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed or the assessment is increased, it shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property if known. (2) All objections to valuation and assessments shall be made to the board, before the date fixed in the notice, by application in writing stating the grounds on which the valuation and assessment are disputed, and all applications so made shall be registered in a book to be kept by the board for the purpose. (3) The board, or a committee empowered by delegation in this behalf, or an officer of the crown or of the board to whom, with the permission of the Prescribed Authority, the board delegates, and it is hereby empowered so to delegate by resolution, powers in this behalf, shall, after allowing the applicant an opportunity of being heard in person or by agent: (a) investigate and dispose of the objections. (b) cause the result, thereof to be noted in the book kept under Sub-section (2), and (c) cause any amendment necessary in accordance with such result to be made in the assessment list.;