PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. RAM BACHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant Municipal Corporation arises out of a suit for declaration that the order dated the 28th September, 1951, passed by the Special Officer of the Patna Municipality (as it then was) enhancing the valuation and assessment of Holding No. 137, Circle No. 44, of Mahalla Ranighat, under Section 107(1)(c) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, VII of 1922 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act), is illegal and ultra vires; and also for a decree for refund of Rs. 102/8/- said to have been realised from the plaintiff by the Municipality in excess of the legitimate quarterly tax. It has come before this Bench as an important question of law arises for decision.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for the purposes of this judgment, may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs case is that, at the time of the general assessment of 1950, the house standing in the holding was unoccupied, and one Mr. Iftakhar Ahmad, a Deputy Magistrate, assessed it to a quarterly municipal tax of Rs. 48/12/-. The plaintiff, thereafter, made improvements in the house by providing water and electric connections. He then let it out on rent to Shri Pratapdhari Sinha, an Advocate, on a-monthly rental of Rs. 75/-. On the 8th January, 1951, he received a notice from the municipality under Section 7(2) read with, section I07(1)(c) of the Act, stating that it was proposed to enhance the valuation of the holding, and that the plaintiff could file an objection. The plain-tiff, accordingly, filed an objection which was heard by the Special Officer of the municipality, who by his order dated the 28th September, 1951, rejected his objection and assessed the holding on the basis of a monthly rental of Rs. 155/- to a tax oi Rs. 151/4/- per quarter. The plaintiff paid under protest a sum of Rs. 151/4/- as quarterly tax for October to December, 1951, which amounted to a payment of Rs. 102/8/- in excess of the tax legally payable as having been assessed at the general assessment.

(3.) The defendant's case is that the holding was let out to Pratapdhari Sinha on a monthly rental-of Rs. 155/- and not Rs. 75/~. The Special Officer himself inspected the holding, and he came to the conclusion that an incorrect valuation and assessment' had been made by reason of fraud and misrepresentation.