MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR versus IMPERIAL TOBACCO OF INDIA LTD .

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 24-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
MUNICIPAL.BOARD, SAHARANPUR 
A 
v. 
IMPERIAL TOBACCO OF INDIA LTD . 
NOVEMBER 24, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Municipalities : 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916: Sections 129 Explanation (a), 128(1) 
(x), 2(2) and 2(5). Water tax-levy of-Jn respect of buildings situated C 
within a "common compound"-At the prescribed radius from nearest public 
water standpipe-Determination of-Words "compound" and "common 
compound"-Meaning of-Held: The term "compound" is different from the 
term '"common compound"-"Compound" means an individual compound 
forming an adjunct or appendage to the building or a cluster of buildings D 
for the exclusive use of the occupants-Whereas "common compound" is any 
land used in common by the occupants of the buildings situated in such 
common land-To constitute "common compound" the land need not be 
appurtenant to the buildings-All buildings situated in the "common 
compound" together will be treated as one building for measuring the 
distance from the nearest water standpipe-If such distance is within the E 
prescribed limit all the buildings situated in the "common compound" will 
be subject to levy of water tax. 
Water tax-Imposition of-Pursuant to Rules framed by Governor-
Gazette notification of said Rules published in a printed booklet-Rules F 
permitted imposition of water tax even on non-residential buildings situated 
within a radius of 600 feet from the nearest water standpipe-Validity-Held: 
There is no restriction under the Rules to show that the radius of 600 feet 
is confined only to residential buildings-The said notification entitled the 
Municipality to impose water tax on lands and buildings including the 
factory situated within municipal limits and within a radius of 600 feet from G 
the nearest water standpipe-There is nothing to indicate that the said 
notification would not have been gazetted in the same form in which it is 
printed in the booklet-Therefore, presumption under Section I I 4 JJJ(e) of 
· the Evidence Act regarding the peiformance of Official Act would clearly get 
attracted in the facts of the present case-Evidence Act, 1872, S. I 14 JJJ(e). H 
87 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
,A 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 226 and 227-Jurisdiction of High Court-Scope of-Writ 
petition filed before Single Judge of High Court challenging decision of 
Appellate Authority regarding assessment of water tax-Appellate Authority 
ignored the second part of the provision applicable to the case-Held: High 
B Court cannot act as a court of appeal and only patent errors of law as found 
from 1he orders of the authorities below can be corrected in exercise of its 
jurisdiction-In the circumstances of the case, a glaring error of law has 
resulted requiring it to be set aside in writ jurisdiction by the Single Judge. 
Practice and Procedure: 
C 
New Plea-Special Appeal before Division Bench against decision of 
Single Judge of High Court-Maintainablity of-Under Letters Patent-
Held: Appeal under Art. 133 is pending since long before Supreme Court on 
certificate of fitness granted by High Court-Even assuming that the Special 
Appeal was not maintainable under the Letters Patent applicable to the High 
D Court a party would be entitled to urge before the Supreme Court that he 
may be permitted to challenge the order of the Single Judge directly before 
the Supreme Court under Article 136 since the entire period spent by him 
in the High Court and the Supreme Court will get excluded under Section 
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963-Consequently, at such a late stage it is not 
fit to allow the opposite party to take up this contention for voiding the 
E decision of the Division Bench. 
New plea-Regarding mixed question of law and fact-Never taken up 
at any stage in the hierarchy of proceedings-Permissibility of-The said 
plea went to the root of the jurisdiction and authority of the Municipal Board 
to impose water tax on non-residential premises-Held: In the circumstances, 
p it becomes necessary for the Supreme Court, in appeal, to consider that 
point. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
External aids-Dictionary meaning or 111eaning in commonparlance-
Held: Can be resorted to if a word or an expression is not defined in the 
G statute. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Compound"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(5) of the U.P. 
Municipalities Act, 1916. 
H 
"Co111mon compound"-Meaning of-In the context of Explanation (a) 
MUNL BO. SAKARANPUR v. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.