LexMUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR versus SHAHDARA (DELHI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAIL CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR
\(
SHA HD ARA (DELHI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAIL CO. LTD.
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
B
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]
U.P. Municipalities Act, I 9 I 6:
Ss.2(2), 2(5), 128(1) (i), 129, Explanation (a) and S.140(1) (a)-
C House tax and water tax-Several buildings situated in a complex having
"common compound"-Heldfor the purpose of water tax the term "common
compound" as found in S. I 29-Explanation (a) would cover all buildings
and the water stand pipe being within the prescribed distance from the
"common compound", the entire complex would be treated as one unit-As
regards house tax, all the buildings situated alongwith their appurtenant
D land in one "common compound" cannot be treated as one unit for imposing
house tax under S.128(1) (i); each building with land appurtenant to it
would be taxed as one unit-JO per cent depreciation allowed on total
estimated cost of buildings for bringing it within the assessable tax net of
house tax cannot be said to be ultra-vires the provisions of the Act or beyond
E the jurisdiction of assessing authority.
Words and Phrases;
Expressions "building", "compound" and "common compound" as
occurring in Ss. 2(2), 2(5), 128(1), and 129 Explanation (a) of U.P.
F Municipalities Act, 1916-Meaning of
The appellant-Municipal Board issued notice to the respondent-Railway
Company assessing its properties, situated in one complex, to house-tax and
water-tax. The annual value was determined with reference to clause(~) 'lf
sub-section (I) of S.140 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916
G treating all the buildings as one unit and all the land in the area as appurtenant
to the buildings. The appellate authority confirmed the order with regard trl
house-tax subject to the modification that the cost of the buildings for the
purpose of calculating annual value be reduced by 10 per cent by way of
depreciation allowance.
H
The Board was, however, found not entitled to levy water tax on the
120
-
-
MUNICIPAL BD. SAHARANPUR. I'. SHAHDARA {DELHI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAIL CO. LTD
121
complex as in the opinion of the appellate authority, the distance between the A
water stand point and the complex was more than 600 feet. Both the Board
as also the Company filed writ petitions before the High Court. Single Judge
held that lands of the company were within the radius of 600 feet from the
nearest water stand point; but all buildings should not be treated as one unit
and only those buildings which were within the radius of600 feet were liable B
to water-tax. As regards hause tax, it was held that all the buildings situated
in the "common compound" could not be treated as one unit in a "common
compound" and had to be taxed separately by computing the annual letting
yalue of such buildings and their appurtenant land. The company filed two
special appeals whereas the Municipal Board filed a special cross appeal
challenging the order with regard to levy of water tax building wise. The C
Division Bench disposed of the appeals. Aggrieved, the Munici~rd filed
the present appeal.
It was contended for the appellant-Municipal Board that all the buildings
belonging to the respondent-Company and situated within the "common
compound" should be treated as one Unit for the purpose of water tax as also D
house tax; and that 10 per cent depreciation granted by the appellate authority
and confirmed by the High Court on total assessable value of the buildings
for the purpose of house-tax was ultra vi res and beyond the scope of the Act.
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court.
HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that
only those buildings of the respondent which were situated within the radius
E
of 600 feet from the nearest water stand pipe of the appellant could be
subjected to water tax. The term "common compound" as found in S.129
Explanation (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 would cover F
all buildings situated within the land wherein the occupants of the buildings
have a common right of usage by way of passage to and fro or even otherwise
a right to commonly use the said land wherein the cluster of these buildings
is situated, especially when a part of the said common land was within a
radius of 600 feet from the nearest water stand pipe fixed by the appellant
Board. (127-A; 125-G(
G
Municipal Board Saharanpur v. lmpe:-ial Tobacco of India ltd. & Anr.,
(1999) 1 sec. 566, relied on.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.