MUNICIPAL BOARD OF KANPUR Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA AS OWNER OF EAST INDIAN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed on behalf of the Municipal Board of Kanpur in a suit filed by the dominion of India as the owner of the East Indian Railway through the General Manager, East indian Railway, for the following relief:

(2.) THE Municipal Board of Kanpur revised the house tax and water-rate of the buildings within its jurisdiction and enhanced the rate with the result that it demanded from the East Indian railway Administration house tax and water-rate at the rate of Rs. 19,860/- per annum with effect from 1-4-1943, for a period of five years. The Railway Administration, under Section 135, indian Railways Act, referred the matter to Shri P. N. Crofts, District Judge, Kanpur, for adjudication as he was the officer empowered by a notification of the Government issued under the Railways (Local Authorities' Taxation) Act (Act No. 25 of 1941) to determine the amount payable in lieu of taxes by the Railway Administration. Shri Crofts gave his award on 1-8-1945, and determined that the sum of Rs. 8,000/- per annum was the proper amount payable by the railway Administration to the Municipal Board as house tax and water-rate. As the determination was in respect of a lump sum for six properties which were separately numbered, he was asked to apportion the amount between the various properties and fix their liabilities separately. He, therefore, gave a supplementary award on 21-3-1946. Soon after the award was made by Shri Crofts, the Municipal Board passed a resolution, claiming to enhance the house tax and water-rate from Rs. 8,000/- per annum to Rs. 12,038/- and, to a protest made by the Railway administration, it sent a reply dated 13-11-1946, that the Municipal Board had the right to increase the amount and that if the Railway Administration felt aggrieved, they can pay he amount under protest and take up the matter again before the District Judge. The position taken, therefore, was that the Board had a right to fix such amount as it thought proper for house tax and water-rate and it was for the Railway Administration, if they did not like the decision of the Board, to move the District Judge for a fresh award. It is this position which has been maintained by learned counsel for the appellant. It will, therefore, be necessary to refer to the various provisions under which the local authorities are allowed to levy taxes on government properties.

(3.) SECTION 154, Government of India Act, 1935, (before the Adaptation Order) provided: