LexMUNICIPAL BOARD, SITAPUR versus PRAYAG NARAIN SAIGAL & FIRM MOOSARAM BHAGWANDAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNICIPAL BOARD, SITAPUR
v.
PRAYAG
NARAIN
SAIGAL
& FIRM MOOSARAM'.
BHAGWANDAS
January 16, 1969
[S. M. SIKRI. R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. lIEGDE, JJ.]
U.P. Municip~lities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act 2 of 1916)-Levy of water
rax-Non-comp/iance with provisions of SJ. 131(3), 132(2)
and 94-
Whether makes levy involid-E[Ject of·'· 135(3).
The Municipal Board Sitapur took various steps to levy water tax a~
authorised by s. 126(1)(x) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and the
special resolution imposing the tax with effect from October l, 1957 wa~
passed on April 23, 1957. The High Omrt held the levy to be invalid.
In appeal filed by the Municipal Board this O>urt had to consider the
effect of (i) the omission to publish the preliminary p\'opooal separately
in the manner prescribed by s. 131(3) read with s. 94,
(ii) the
non·
publication of the modified proposal in accordance with s. 132(2) and
(iii) the non-publication of the special resolution directing the impooition
of the tax in accordance with s. 94.
HELD : The High Court was in error in quashing the imposition ol
the water~tax.
(i) Procedural defects in the imposition of the tax are cured by s.
135(3). Snch defects cannot be regarded as fundamental or as invalida-
ting the imposition, if no substantial prejudice is caused thereby to thl.".'
inhabitants of the municipality.
The issue of the notification under s.
135(2) ts conclusive proof that all necessary steps for the imposition ol
the tax. have been taken in accordance \Vith the provisions of the Act.
[J89E-F]
Municipal Board v. Raghuvendra, [19661 I S.C.R. 950. Buland Sugar
v. Municipal Board, [1965) I S.C.R. 97(} and Berar Swade.ihi Vana.rpcthi
v. Municipal Committee, Shegaon, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 596, applied.
(ii) In the present case there was
substanti::ll
compliance
with
s.
131 (3).
The proposal was not separately published in the prescribed
tonn but the 01nission to do so was a mere irregularity.
The object of
the publication under s. 131(3) is to inform the inhabitants of !he pro-
posal so that they can file their objeclions to it.
Thal object was fully
achie.ved by the publication in the local newspaper.
[39(} B-D]
(ii!) The inh.abitants submitted all objections which they could possi-
bly raise both with regard to the rate of tax and the exemption limit. No
prejudice was caused by not inviting fresh objections to reduction of the
rate of tax or !he exemption limit.
Tbe non-publication of the modified
proposal was a mere irregularity and the defect was cured bys. 135(31.
[390 E]
(iv) Section 134(2) does not provide for the publication of the special
re.olut1on passed under it.
Assuming that it had to be published under
the general provisions of s. 94, the non-publication was a mere irregularity
cured by s. 135(3).
[391 CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeals Nos. 84 7
and 848 of 1966.
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
A
January 20, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
in Writ Petitions Nos. 108 and 109 of 1962.
S. C. Manchantla· and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant (in both
the appeals).
C. B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the respondents (in
B
both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bacbawat, J. These appeals are directed against orders of
the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), quashing the im-
position of a water rate imposed by the Municipal Board, Sita-
pur.
Section 126(l){x) of the "(J.P. Municipalities Act, 1916
( U.P Act No. 2 of 1916) empowers the Board to impose a
water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both.
Sections 131 to 135 lay down the procedure for imposing the
tax. The High Court held that the levy was invalid as the Bollfd
did not comply with this procedure.
A municipal board desiring to impose the tax is required by
s. 131 sub-s. (1) to pass a ~ecial reso!\1tion framing the pre-
liminary proposal for the tax.
The Municipal Board, Sitapur.
passed a special resolution on January 24, 1956 framing the
proposal for the levy of water tax at the rate of 12 % per annum
on the annual value of buildings and lands and exempting
buildings and lands whose annual value was Rs. 24 or below.
Section 131 sub.-s. (2) requires the Board to prepare a draft
·Of the rules in respect of the proposed tax.
The Board duly
prepared the necessary draft rules.
Section 131 sub-s. (3) reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.