BHANDARI, J. - (1.) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions raise common questions of law and are therefore, being disposed of by this judgment. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties raised in these writ petitions, it is necessary to give quote the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) which was brought into force on 14th September, 1959. Chapter VII of the Act deals with the imposition of taxes. The scheme of this Chapter is that the taxes are classified in two categories. The first category is regarding obligatory taxes which are dealt with in sec. 104 and the second category of taxes are dealt with in sec 105 of the Act. In these writ petitions it is the tax imposed on the annual letting value of buildings in the Municipalities of Jalore, Ganganagar and Merta which are in question. The relevant portions of secs, which will be considered hereinafter are. Sec. 104. Obligatory taxes: - Every board shall levy, at such rate and from such date as the State Government may in each case direct by notification in the official Gazette and in such manner as is laid down in this Act and as may be provided in the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, the following taxes, namely: - (1) a tax on the annual letting value of buildings lands or both, situated within the municipality : Sec. 105. Other taxes that may be imposed - (1) Subject to any general or special orders of the State Government in this behalf, a board may impose and levy in the whole or any part of the municipality for which it is established all or any of the following taxes, namely: - Sec. 108. Procedure preliminary to imposing tax.- A board, before imposing a tax under sec. 105, shall observe the following preliminary procedure: - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sec. 114. Appointment of assessors.- (1) For assessing the tax on the annual letting value of buildings or lands or both, situated within the municipality, every board shall appoint, with the sanction of the State Government, an assessor who shall prepare an assessment list in such form and in such manner as may be laid down in rules made by the State Government in that behalf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sec. 115. Supply of certain information and consequence of failure to supply.- (1) On the requisition of the assessor, the owner or occupier of any building or land or both referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 114 shall, within such reasonable period as shall be specified in the requisition, be bound.- (i) to furnish a true return to the best of his knowledge or belief and subscribe with his signature, - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) If such owner or occupier fails or refuses to comply with the requision within the period specified therein, then, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under any other provisions of this Act, the assessor shall, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, determine the annual letting value of such building or land or both, to the best of his judgment and assess the tax payable thereon. Sec. 116. Publication of assessment list.- When the assessment list has been prepared the asse-ssor shall give public notice thereof, and of the place and time where the list or a copy thereof may be inspected; and every person claiming to be either owner or occupier of the property included in the list and any agent of such person shall be at liberty to inspect the list and to make extracts therefrom without charge. Sec. 117. Public notice of time fixed for revising assessment list.- (1) The assessor shall at the time of the publication of such assessment list give public notice of a date, not less than one month thereafter, when the revising authority will proceed to revise the valuation and assessment; and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed or the assessment is increased the assessor shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property if known and if the owner or occupier of the property is not known he shall affix the notice in a conspicuous place on the property. (2) The revising authority to whom objections under sub-sec. (i) may be made shall be the board or any committee to which the board may delegate this function or an officer of the State Government to whom with the permission of the State Government the board may delegate this function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) The revising authority 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 books kept under sub-sec. (3), and (c) cause any amendment necessary in accordance with such result to be made in the assessment list. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Government of Rajasthan issued a Notification No. F (34) LSG/59, dated 30. 6. 1960 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 9th July, 1960 directing all the Municipal Boards in Rajasthan mentioned in the Schedule appended thereto to levy a tax on the annual letting value of the buildings and lands excluding agricultural land (within their respective limits) at the rate of 5% with effect from 1st July, 1960. The State Government superseded the Notification dated the 30th June, 1960 by another Notification No. F. 4 (34) LSG/59 dated the 30th September, 1962. By the subsequent Notification the State Government directed all the Municipal Boards and Municipal Councils except Jaipur, Ajmer, Beawar and Abu Road to levy a tax on the annual letting value of the buildings and lands excluding agricultural lands at the rates mentioned therein with effect from the 1. 10. 1962.
(2.) NOW we first take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 415 of 1963. The Municipal Board, Jalore issued bills for the payment of taxes on the annual letting value of the building for the period commencing from the 1. 10. 1963 to the 31st March, 1964 to the petitioners. These petitioners have prayed that the Municipal Board Jalore be prohibited from taking any proceedings in respect of the recovery of the amounts of the bills from the petitioners. They have further prayed for a declaration that the levy of the house tax by the Municipal Board and all proceedings taken so far in this respect by the said Board Jalore were without jurisdiction and they should be ordered to be quashed. To the writ petition the State of Rajasthan has also been made a party. The following points have been urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of their contentions. (i) That after the issue of notification dated the 30th June, 1960 by the State Government the Municipal Board Jalore had not taken any proceedings for the imposition of the tax under sec. 108 and subsequent sections and as such there has been no valid imposition of tax. (ii) That under sec. 114 of the Act, the Municipal Board Jalore should have appointed with the sanction of the State Government an assessor who was to prepare the assessment list. But in the instant case no appointment of an assessor was made by the Municipal Board, Jalore and the assessment list prepared by Shri Ishrat Hussain was not valid. (iii) That at the time of preparation of assessment list individual notices were not issued to the owners or occupiers of the buildings as required under sec. 115 of the Act to furnish a true return to the best of the knowledge of the assessees and assessment list was prepared without such notice. (iv) That whatever proceedings were undertaken under the notification dated the 30th June, 1960 could not be made use of after the issuance of the second notification dated the 30th September, 1962 as it was the duty of the Municipal Board Jalore to prepare fresh assessment lists, but this was not done and the Municipal Board acted on the lists prepared under the earlier notification. (v) That as required under sec. 117 (2) of the Act, the Board did not consider the objections filed under sec. 117 (1) and the revising authority which had been appointed before the second notification of the 30th September, 1962 was issued, continued to function as a revising authority contrary to the provisions of the Act. (vi) That Shri Ugam See Modi Chairman of the Board who was member of the Committee upon whom the Board had delegated the functions of revising authority remained absent from 29th November, 1962 to 23rd January, 1963 and for that reason ceased to be Chairman and as such all proceedings taken by the revising committee are mill and void and without jurisdiction. (vii) That no criteria has been laid down in the Act for valuing and assessing the houses and lands for the purposes of determining the house tax and the question of valuation and assessment has been left entirely to the assessing authority or the revising authority and the assessor in the case of the petitioners has made arbitrary valuation and assessment on the basis of which bills for payment of tax have been prepared. In reply filed by the Municipal Board, Jalore the contentions raised by the petitioners have been controverted. It is urged that no proceedings for the imposition of the tax were required to be taken by the Municipal Board and the Municipal Board was to realise tax in accordance with the Notification of the State Government. It is next urged that Shri Ishrat Hussain was appointed as assessor by the Director of Local Bodies on the recommendation of the Chairman Municipal Board, Jalore and the Director was competent to appoint the assessor as he has been authorised by the Board to do so by Resolution No. 18 of the 9th January, 1962 and that the proceedings taken by Shri Ishrat Hussain were legal and valid. It is also urged that it is not obligatory on the part of the assessor to issue individual notices to the owners and occupiers of buildings or lands under sec. 115 of the Act before the preparation of the assessment list. A public notice was issued on the 29th March, 1962 wherein the owners of the buildings and lands were requested to furnish the required information within a specified period mentioned therein. Thereafter the assessor prepared the assessment lists and issued public notice under sec. 116 of the Act and mentioned in the notice the place and time where the assessment list could be inspected. It is further urged that the residents were permitted to copy out the extract from the assessment lists without any charge. A fresh notice as required under sec. l 16 was given on the Janaury,1963 for filing objections and all the residents of the municipality were permitted to inspect the assessment lists of all the wards and take extracts therefrom. In pursuance of the notice dated the 15th January, 1963, objections were received in the Boards's office and were considered by a committee to which the Board had delegated the function of revising authority and Shri Ugam See Modi was a member of that committee. It is denied that Shri Ugam See Modi absented himself for a period exceeding one month from 29th November, 1962 to 23rd January, 1963 from the Municipality and as such became disqualified to act as Chairman under sec. 65 (6) of the Act. It is stated that Shri Ugam See Modi though indisposed during this period attended to the important work of the Board at his residence and at other places. He was also the member of the revising authority and the proceedings of the revising authority were not null and void and without jurisdiction. It is further urged that it is not necessary that any special criteria should have been laid down by the Act or the rules for preparation of the assessment lists, and that the assessment lists should be taken to be validly prepared even if there is no provision in the Act or the rules laying down the criteria for the preparation of the assessment lists. It is also urged that the bills have been issued to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and if there has been any mistake it has been rectified. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any force. The first contention of the petitioners is based on a misinterpretation of sec. 104 of the Act. That section provides that: - "every board shall levy, at such rate and from such date as the State Government may in each case direct by notification in the official Gazette and in such manner as is laid down in this Act and as may be provided in the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, the taxes mentioned therein, and one of the taxes mentioned in this section is a tax on the annual letting value of buildings or lands or both, situated within the municipality. " In the proviso to that section certain exemptions have been provided but these need not be considered. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the word 'levy' either means impose or impose and collect tax and as there has been no valid imposition in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the tax cannot be levied. The contention of the other side is that the word 'levy' in the context of this section means only "collect" or "assess and collect" as the tax must be deemed to have been imposed by the Notification issued by the State Government. It is urged that the imposition of tax under sec. 104 is the duty of the State Government and that is done as soon as it issues a notification in the official gazette and what is left to the Municipal Board is merely to collect tax. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made much stress on the point that primary meaning of the word 'levy' is to impose. It may include assessment but it cannot mean mere collection. In this connection he has referred to Art. 265 of the Constitution wherein it has been provided that no tax shall be levied and collected except by the authority of law. He has also relied on the following observations of Bhandari C. J. In Firm L. Hazarimal Kuthiala Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt (1) : - "to 'levy a tax' means to impose or assess or to impose, assess or collect under the authority of law. " In Webster's Dictionary 'levy' has been given the meaning 'to raise or collect, as by assessment, execution or other legal process, etc; to exact or impose by authority; as, to lavy taxes, toll, tribute, or contributions. In Black's Law Dictionary 'levy' has been given the meaning : "to assess; raise; execute; exact; collect; gather; take up ; seize. Thus to levy (assess, exact, raise, or collect) a tax. " The word 'levy' has no fixed meaning and is to be interpreted in the context in which it has been used. In the context in which the word 'levy' has been used in sec. 104 it does not mean ''impose" as imposition of a tax under this section is made by a notification of the State Government and when the Board is directed to levy, its function is to perform the duty of collection. It is in this sense that the word 'levy' has been used in sec. 104. It is further clear when we consider sec. 105 which provides for other kinds of taxes. The relevant part of sec. 105 (1) runs as follows: - "other taxes that may be imposed - Subject to any general or special orders of the State Government in this behalf, a board may impose and levy in the whole or any part of the municipality for which it is established all or any of the following taxes, namely: - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Under sec. 105 it is clear that the word 'levy' has been used as distinct from 'impose' as in this section both these words have been used. Levy in sec. 105 can only mean "collect" or "assess and collect". The same meaning should be given to it under sec. 104. Again, the words 'impose', "imposition" or "imposing" have been used at various places in the Act in secs. 106, 107, 108 and 110. This further shows that the legislature made a distinction in using the words "irnpose"and 'levy'. It is also to be noticed that sec. 108 which lays down the procedure preliminary to imposing tax, expressly mentions that this procedure applies to taxes to be imposed under sec. 105. This means that procedure has not to be followed in case of tax under sec. 104. For all these reasons we are of opinion that this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has got no force. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Shri Ishart Hussain was not appointed by the Board but was thrust upon it by the Director of Local Bodies. Ex. 3 is office order passed by the Director of Local Bodies on the 15th March 1962. This order clearly shows that the Director merely approved the appointment of Shri Ishrat Hussain as assessor in the Municipal Board Jalore on the request of the Chairman dated the 12th March, 1963. Even if the appointment! be deemed to have been made by the Director of Local Bodies, it may be mentioned] that there is a resolution on record of the Municipal Board Jalore dated the 9th January, 1962 (Ex. 2) by which the Municipal Board has requested the Director of Local Bodies to appoint a person as assessor as a suitable person was not available to the Board. Again Shri Ishrat Hussain was in the employment of the Board and was performing the duty of the assessor and he must be taken to have been appointed by the Board. The second contention urged by the learned counsel has also no force. Now we come to the third contention urged by the learned counsel. In this contention, learned counsel has relied upon sec. 115 which has already been quoted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that for the preparation of assessment list it is but necessary to obtain a true return from the owner or occupier of building or land and as such it is obligatory that the assessor before preparing the assessment list must issue a requisition to the owner or occupier of building or land contained in the assessment list. It is further contended that best judgment assessment as provided in sub-S. 2 can only be made if the owner or occupier refuses to comply with the requisition within the period specified therein. We may point out that under sec. 114 of the Act a duty has been cast on the assessor to prepare assessment list in such form and in such manner as may be laid down in the rules made by the State Government in that behalf. In discharging this duty the assessor may require the owner or occupier of any building or land to furnish information contained in sec. 115 (1) and a duty has been cast upon the owner or occupier to furnish such information. No duty has been cast upon the assessor under sec. 115 to issue requisition in the case of each and every owner or occupier of building or land which is being assessed. Ordinarily it may be that the assessor may feel the necessity of issuing such requisition to each and every owner or occupier of property. But this is not obligatory in law. The assessment contemplated under sec. 115 is only a provisional assessment as under sec. 117 a final assessment is to be made after publication of the assessment list and after giving public notice to raise objections under sec. 116. What is contemplated in sub-sec. 2 of sec. 115 is that if the assessor has sent a requision and the owner or occupier does not attend to it, the assessor may make a provisional assessment to the best of his judgment. But thereby that person is not precluded to raise any objection under sec. 117. It is also to be noted that in case of first assessment the requirement of law is that a public notice of a date not less than one month thereof is to be given and the assessor is also to give individual notice to the owner or occupier of the property. If the owner or occupier of the property is not known, he is to affix the notice in a conspicuous place on the property. We are therefore, of the view that even if the assessor had not given notices to all the petitioners before making the preliminary assessment requiring them to furnish the true return relating to matters referred to in sec. 1)5 (1) the assessment list prepared by the assessor was not invalid. It is not the case of the petitioners that the provisions of sec. 117 (1) were not followed. We, therefore, reject this contention of the learned counsel. Now we come to the fourth contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have already mentioned that notification dated the 30th September, 1952 superseded the earlier notification of i960. Under this notification not only the date from which the tax was to be levied but also its rate was changed. We have also pointed out that after this notification the assessor published a new assessment list under sec. 116 fixing the liability of the assessees in accordance with the new notification. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in drawing up the new assessment list the assessor made use of the material contained in the old assessment list. In our opinion, if the assessor did so he was not acting contrary to law. The assessor could make use of all available material before him in drawing up the new list. This contention has also no force. Now we come to the fifth contention raised by the learned counsel. Sec. 117 (2) runs as follows : - "the revising authority to whom objections under sub-sec. (1) may be made shall be the board or any committee to which the board may delegate this function or an officer of the State Government to whom with the permission of the State Government the Board may delegate this function. " In this case a committee consisting of four members of the Municipal Board was constituted under Resolution No. 18 dated the 19th January, 1962 of the Municipal Board to which the Board had delegated its function of the revising tax. It is not necessary that for each assessment there must be a revising authority separately appointed. It is sufficient in the eye of law if the revising authority is appointed by the board and that revising authority hears and disposes of the objections as provided in sub-sec. 4 of sec. 117. The contention of the learned counsel that after the new assessment a new revising authority was not appointed, has thus no force.
(3.) THE sixth contention raised by the learned counsel has no force as we are satisfied on facts that Shri Ugam See Modi continued to function as Chairman of the Board and as also member of the committee which was the revising authority in this case. Coming to the seventh contention, we may point out that the duty of preparing assessment list was cast on the assessor and this officer is to be appointed by a Municipal Board with the sanction of the State Government. This provision has been made to ensure that the assessor has the requisite qualification to make the assessment. In the preparation of the assessment list the assessor has to determine the annual letting value of the building or land. R. 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Land a Building) Rules, 1961 makes a provision how assessment list is to be prepared. R. 5 runs as follows : - "preparation of assessment list - (1) An assessment list for the purpose of levying the tax shall be prepared ward-wise in Form 1. (2) In assessing the amount of the tax payable in respect of any land or building, a sum equal to ten per cent of its annual letting value by way of allowance for repairs and maintenance, insurance, sinking fund etc. (3) For the purpose of determining the annual letting value of any land or building and assessing the amount thereof, the assessor may - (a) enter upon or into, inspect and measure any building or land, and (b) If necessary, make inquiries from the people living in neighbourhood and examine the previous record of the municipality or other local authority in relation to such building or land. (4) When the name of the person primarily liable, for the payment of the tax cannot be ascertained, it shall be sufficient to designate him in the assessment list and in any notice which it may be necessary to serve upon him as the holder of the building or land, without any further description. (5) Where any building or land liable as a whole to the payment of the tax is composed of separate tenements, the assessor may, upon the request of the owner of any such tenement, determine the annual letting value of each such tenement separately and assess the amount of tax payable in respect thereof; Provided that the valuation of the entire building or land shall be the building factor in determining the liability to the payment of the tax. " Form 1 referred to in R. 5 further provides that if the property be in the possession of the tenant the amount of rent paid by such tenant is to be mentioned and the annual letting value of the building should also be mentioned. Sec. 114 specifically says that the assessor is to prepare the assessment list in such manner as may be laid down in the rules by the State Government. In the rules there is sufficient guidance given to the assessor in the mode of preparation of assessment list, and in the Act it has been left to the State Government to furnish guidance to the assessor. A discretion is of course to be given to an executive officer in the discharge of his duties and in the instant case we do not find that the discretion given to the assessor in the preparation of the assessment list is of such a character that we should strike down sec. 114 of the Act. We may further point out that the assessment list prepared by the assessor is not the final one. The assessor has been given opportunity to raise objection under sec. 117 and that objection has to be decided by a revising authority. An appeal has also been provided to the Collector or such other officer as empowered by the State Government in this behalf in sec. 139. Taking all these things into consideration we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is without force. Thus all the contentions of the learned counsel must be rejected. We may point out that during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners filed an application for an amendment of the writ petition that the petitioners may be permitted to take further grounds in support of their contention that in sec. 104 of the Act an arbitrary power has been given to the State Government to lay down rate of tax as high as it likes and no restriction has been placed upon it so far as the rate and quantum of the tax is concerned and thus the petitioners* fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution are infringed. The application was made at a very late stage when the case was being argued in the court. We, therefore, disallowed the application. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 185 of 1963, 257 of 1963, 103 of 1963, 343 of 1963, 475 of 1963 and 263 of 1964 that in view of our decision in Chhaganlal's case, they cannot succeed. All these petitions are therefore, dismissed with one set of costs. . ;