PATHAK,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This and the connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the connected revision applications under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raise an important question as to the validity of a demand of general tax and water tax made by the Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Kanpur.
(2.) THE facts are substantially similar in the several cases. They may be set out here as they arise in the instant writ petition. The petitioner is the owner of house property in Kanpur. In proceedings under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the Municipal Board of Kanpur prepared the quinquennial assessment list for the period 1958-63. The assessment list mentioned the annual value of the petitioners building and the amount of tax assessed in respect of it. The rate at which the house tax and water tax were each assessed was 6¼ per cent of the annual value of the building.
(3.) THE U.P. Municipalities Act, (which we shall for convenience refer to as "the Act") was replaced by the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (which we shall refer to as "the Adhiniyam"). The Adhiniyam came into force on February 1, 1960. In place of the Municipal Board, Kanpur a new body came into existence known as the Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Kanpur (which for brevity, shall be referred to hereinafter as "the Mahapalika").;