Bapna, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Beawar and owns immoveable property bearing No. 1/537, amongst others, within the limits of the Beawar Municipality. THE Municipality of Beawar imposed house tax and the authenticated list required to be made under sec. 82 (1) was published on 15th of July, 1957 and the notice of demand was served on 6th November, 1957. THE petitioner challenges the validity of the imposition of tax on several grounds: - (i) THE resolution by which the tax was imposed was passed by a committee, which was not competent to do so as the necessary members to form the quoram were not present. (ii) THE rules of assessment and collection required to be framed under sec. 247 (h) were not so framed when the resolution of the committee was published by the Chief Commissioner on 8th August, 1951; (iii) THE rules were framed on 1st June, 1953 and the collection of tax prior to that the was not authorised under the law; (iv) It was contended that tax, which has been imposed on the petitioner is on the basis of the rental value of the premises in respect of the portion of the premises while in respect of the other portion the assessment is on the basis of the area of the open land occupied by the petitioner. It was urged that sec. 76 clause (a) which permitted taxation, did not contemplate the imposition on more than one ground mentioned in that provision. On behalf of Municipal Committee, Beawar every one of the contentions have been traversed. It may be mentioned that under sec. 77 (1), it is laid down that a notification under sub-sec. (7) of the imposition of a tax under this regulation shall be conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this regulation. The notification referred to was issued by the Chief Commissioner in the present case on the 8th of August, 1951 (document 4 ). According to sub-sec. 10 of sec. 77, it must be taken as proved that all the necessary procedure for imposing the tax has been followed in accordance with the provisions of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Azimulla vs. Suraj Kumar Singh (1) in support of his contention that if certain basic conditions for the issue of notification have not been complied with, then the Court is not precluded from going behind the notification and to find for itself whether the procedure has been according to the provisions of the regulation. With great respect, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Judge, who decided the Allahabad case. If the publication of the notification is conclusive evidence,then the court cannot go behind that notification to see what had really happened and if the court cannot see what had happened, it cannot come to the conclusion that certain formality had not been followed. Sub-sec. (10) bars further probe into the procedure followed in the matter of imposition of tax beyond the notification itself. In our opinion, the notification of 8th August, 1951 is conclusive evidence of the fact that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation. As to the omission to frame and publish rules simultaneously with the resolution, the relevant provision is sub-sec. 7 of sec. 77. "where a resolution his after confirmation been forwarded, or any proposals have been sanctioned by the Chief Commissioner under sub-sec. (6), or where any proposals forwarded to the Governor-General in Council have been sanctioned by him, the Chief Commissioner shall notify the same in official Gazette, together with any rules which he may make under sec. 247 in respect of the tax. " The language is permissive. It does not say that if the rules are not notified, the resolution imposing the tax shall not take effect. It would certainly be convenient if the rules which may be framed under sec. 247 (h) be published along with the resolution itself so that the assessment and realization of the tax may be expedited. As to when the house tax can be brought into force, is provided by sub-sec. 8 of sec. 77. The notification issued under sub-sec. 7 must specify a date not less than three months from the date of the publication thereof on which the tax shall, and before which it cannot come into force. As observed by this Court in an unreported decision in the case of Durga Prasad vs. Beawar Municipal Committee, Beawar (Write Petition No. 142 of 1957, decided on 3rd September, 1957), "the framing of rules and the publication of the assessment lists are ancillary matters, and do not affect the date from which the tax is to be levied. The only effect of the delay in the publication of rules and assessment lists would be that the tax remains in abeyance, and does not come to be collected and utilised, but it does not affect the right of the Municipal Committee to levy tax for the period from which it comes into force. " As to the method of assessment, the relevant provision of sec. 76 is that "the committee may impose in the whole or any part of the Municipality any of the following taxes, namely. (a) A tax payable by the owner, on buildings, or lands, or both : (i) not exceeding one-tenth of the annual value, or (ii) not exceeding one anna per square yard of the ground area, or (iii) not exceeding rupees three per running foot of frontage in streets and bazars. What the law provides is a ceiling as to the amount of tax which may be realisable. In the present case, it is not disputed that the tax which has been imposed is below the ceiling which is mentioned in sec. 76 (a ). The contention, however, is that only one of the three methods of imposition of taxes could have been resorted to. The Committee could either tax on the rental value or to the extent of the ground area or on the length of frontage, but that it cannot impose a tax, taking all the three methods into account in respect of the building within the Municipal limits. In our opinion, this contention also has no force. The Act gives a choice of assessment in any one of the three ways according to the nature of the property and we can contemplate a case where more than one methods could be applied. What any assessee may reasonably complain is that there should not be double taxation in the sense that while he may once be taxed according to the rental value, he may not again be subjected to a tax according to the area occupied by him or according to the frontage occupied by him. In the present case, there is no grievance on the score that he has been taxed twice over for the same position of premises. There is no force in any of the contentions raised and this petition is hereby dismissed with costs. . ;