RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) -This petition relates to a notice of assessment of house and water tax of premises bearing Municipal No. D-58/7-22, Bhagwan Das Nagar Colony, Mohalla Sigra, Varanasi. The assessment of this premises for the purpose of municipal tax was made at Rs. 3600/-. The petitioner objected to this assessment on the ground that in the similarity of circumstances in the same colony where residential plots were more or less of the same area, other owners had been subjected to assessment at a much lesser rateable value. In his objection, in effect, the petitioner alleged discrimination and sought similarity of assessment as with other owners in the same colony. The objection of the petitioner is dated 20th March, 1980. Objections were decided by the Up Prashashak, Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi respondent no. 3 on 31 March, 1980. Respondent no. 3 accepted the contention of the petitioner, to the effect, that there was no income from the premises as there was no tenant, and that the floors of the two rooms are ordinary and the other two are mosaic. Respondent no. 3 reduced the assessment to Rs. 3000/-.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal under section 472 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) before the judge, Small Causes, Varanasi. THE case was numbered as Municipal Appeal No. 62 of 1980. In appeal the petitioner took objections that the assessment, as it stands, is excessive and arbitrary and was without consideration of the objections which had been filed, that it was a residential house without any tenant; that no other plot in the area had been assessed at such a high rate; and that houses in the vicinity had been assessed at a much lower rate. The petitioner gave exemplars of the assessment of other houses. The appeal was decided by the Judge, Small Causes by his order dated 23 May, 1981. The order is very short and cryptic. The Judge, Small Causes accepts that the house of the petitioner is only used for residential purposes and there is no income out of any tenancy. The order noticed the argument of the petitioner that buildings in the same locality have been assessed at a much lower rate. The Judge, Small Causes reduced the assessment to Rs. 2500/-.
(3.) AGAINST the decision of the Judge, Small Causes the petitioner preferred an appeal before this District Judge, Varanasi which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 46 of 1981. The appeal was considered by the Second Additional Distt. Judge, Varanasi. The petitioner reiterated his submissions to the effect that there was no tenant in the house which was the subject matter of the impugned assessment; that the houses in the same colony had been assessed at much lower rates and evidence of assessments of houses in the vicinity, being extracts of the records of the Nagar Mahapalika were filed before the Second Additional District Judge. A lay out plan of the colony giving the details of the area of the plots and the assesement made in like and similar circumstances were also placed before the appellate authority, aforesaid. The petitioner claimed discrimination in the matter of assessment of the premises and sought like assessment as of other properties in the same colony. In the face of the petitioner's objection and the evidence produced, the learned Second Additional District Judge, Varanasi dismissed the second appeal on 4th July, 1987 solely on the ground that no question of law was involved in the matter and thus the appeal was not maintainable. The reasons given by the Second Additional District Judge, Varanasi while dismissing the second appeal are misconceived. A rate payer i.e. the petitioner was raising contentions before the appellate authority that there has been discrimination in the manner in which his property has been subjected to assessment compared to other owners in the same colony in his neighbourhood. An assessing authority or the appellate authority, in the circumstances, has to justify the order when there is a charge of discrimination. From the facts and circumstances of this case the assessing authority or the Appellate Authority, must justify an assessment which has been made or meet the objections of the rate payer, when discrimination in municipal assessment has been complained of. Subjecting rate payers to dissimilar assessment orders in like and similar circumstances without justifying the assessment does not meet the charge of discrimination. The material which was placed before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority gave details of the lay out plan of the colony, exemplars of other municipal assessments made in the same colony. They were factors which were to be taken into account. Accordingly, thereafter an assessment ought to have been made of the petitioner's property. A municipal assessment of property must be based on a rationale which puts confidence in the rate payer that the assessment is based upon logic and is in accordance with law. The facts and circumstances as are on record, does not give the impression that any reasons have been given in the assessment order or the appellate orders, when the petitioner was complaining of discrimination.;