LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus M/S POLYCHEM LTD.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 20-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

687 
A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
M/S POLYCHEM LTD. 
March 20, 1974 
[M.H. BEG AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 3 of 1888-S. 3(r) and S. 154-Scope of. 
Principles for detennining rateable value of land on which a building is partly 
completed-Doctrine of sterility-Distinction between English and Indian Law. 
The respondent company was owner of a large area of land in Bombay, on a 
part of which there was a building under construction. The bulk of the remaining 
part was lying vacant. The Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation 
determined the market value of the whole land on a notional basis and fixed the 
hypothetical annual rental value of the portion of land on which a building was 
being built as well as the vacant land. 
The respondent's appeal to the Small Cause Court was dismissed. ·Applying the 
doctrine of sterility the High Court held that although a vacant plot of land was 
rateqble under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and so 
was land which had been built UP.on, yet, any part of land which was being actually 
built upon was not rateable until the building was finished because no tenant could 
take it in that condition. 
· 
In the appeal to this Court it was con~nded on bellalf of the ~ppellant Corporation 
that the High Court erred in applying the doctrine of sterility to land rateable under 
the provisions of the Act i. that, the High Court overlooked the essential distinction 
between the Indian and i:.nglish law which waS that the basis for determining the 
rateable value in India was the value of the property to the owner and not to the 
occupier, and, that, every kind of 'land' as defined-by s.3(r) of the Act was rateable 
under s.154 of the Act simply because it had a value to the owner of it and not 
because it was yielding any income or was usefully or beneficially occupied or 
enjoyed by tenant or any other kind of occupant paying for the use of it. Allowing 
the appeal. 
HELD : The judgment under appeal is erroneous as it was held there that 
land which was being rated as vacant ceased to be subject to any ratin~ at all simply 
because a buildin~ began to be made on it by the owner. The role of interpretation 
that, where two views are reasonably or equally open, the court should adopt the 
one which benefits the assessee would enable it to do no more than to treat land which 
is actually being built upon on the same footing as vacant land so long as no structure 
capable of occupation and letting is completed on it. [702 DPE] 
Land which was being built upon should not be rated like ]and on which a building 
has been actually constructed unless and. until the construction had reached a stage 
at which some occupation of the constructed portion was also le~lly and actually 
possible so that it could be taken into account in determining the rateable 
value. [701 F] 
The doctrine of sterility in the context of the provision$ to be construed could 
not apply in this case. In England, land which is in the process of being built uPon 
is equated with vacant land which is not yielding any profit, so that it ceases to bo 
"rateable'' ]and. ·But, under the statute, all 'land' .whether vacant or in the process 
of being built upon is rateable according to well settled principles. (700 A] 
West Bromwich Si:hool Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich, 13 Q.B.D, 
929 @ 942, Mersey Docks & Harbour Boarq v. Oversem of L/ane///an,14 Q.B.O. 
p. 770, The Metropolitan Board of Works v. 
The. Overseers of Weil Ham : 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1'174] 3 s.c.R. 
(1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 193, The Guardians of the Poor of the Sculcoates Union in the 
Borough of Kingston- Upon-Hu/Iv. Dock Company at Kingston-Upon-Hull, 1895 
A.C. 136, the Churchwardens & OversetrS of Lambeth Parish v. The London County 
Council, & 1897 A.C. 625 @ 630-31, London County Council v. Erith (Church-
wardens Overseers of Parish; 1893 A.C. 562 @ 591, held inapplicable. 
The principles upon which lands are rated in this country have been practically 
settled by the decisions of this 
Court which held that the mode of assessment in every 
case must be directed towards finding out the annual letting value of land which 
is based. on rating of land, and, by definition, "land" includes land which is either 
being built upon or has been built upon. A reference to the provisions of the Act 
shows that, after a building haS been completed, the letting va

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