SMT. SHYAM KISHORI DEVI versus PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 04-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHYAM KISHORI DEVI 
v. 
PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. 
February 4. 1966 
(K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Bi/uJr and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B. & 0. Act 7 o/ 1922), a. 
107(l)(c). 117(1) and 38&-suptrsersion of Municipaliry-No1ific01/ons 
appointing ofjic~r to act as Commissioners and as commJttt~Enhancenz1m 
of municipal taxts by such officer and si11i11g in uview 4' Committtt-V ali-
diry-Incorrtct a.rstssmmt, burdt" o/ proof o/. 
On supersession of the Patna Municipality, the Stale Oo\-emment by a 
notification directed an officer of the Municipalily to exercise and perform 
tile powers and duties of tho Commissioner under a. 107 of the Bihar and 
Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. Under s. 117 every application presented to 
the Commissioners for review of an assessment or 
valuation had to be 
heard and determined by a Committee consisting of two Commissioners. 
two tax-payers and a Deputy Magistrate as provided in tbe section. By a 
later notiftcation, the Government directed each of tho three per.ons 
mentioned therein-one of whom was the aforesaid officer, to exercise 
and 11erform the powers and duties conferred and imposed on Comminee 
constituted under s. 117 of the Act. 
Pursuant to these notifications, the 
said officer enhanced the valuation of the holding of the appellant and 
the assessment thereof under s. 107(l)(c) 
of the Act and rejected the 
re'l'!ew petition under a. 117(1) of the Act. 
Tho appellant llled a auit 
challenging the validity of the order of the officer. 
HELD : (i) The order or the officer rejecting the objections filed by 
the appellant and enhancing the value of the holdings was without juris-
diction. 
By a later ~otification, if it was intended to replace the committee by 
one or other of the throe persons mentioned therein. it would be beyond 
the powers ot the Government conferred under the provision• or •. 386(1) 
(b) of !he Act. The effect of this clause is that all the powers and duties 
of the Commissioners conferred and imposed on them under the vario111 
sections of the Act whether act:ng in oommittees or individually would be 
exercised by such person or per.tons as the Slate Government may direct. 
So, the committee under s. 117 could have been constituted with 
one 
or more of the three per.;ons nominated by the Government under s. 386( I) 
(b) of the Act. and two tax-payers nominated by them and a Deputy 
Magistrate nominated by the Government. 
To say that when once the 
Commissioners vaca1ed their office on superaession it was impossible for 
them to nominate or elect two other tax-payers to the commitee within the 
meaning of s. 117(1) would render inorerative all sections whereundor 
powers were conferred or duties imposed on Commissioners, and would 
make s. 117 (I) unworkable leading to the anomaly that the same officer 
wbo revised the assessment would sit in judgment over It. [471 O; 472 
A-DJ 
(ii) Under s. 107(1 )(c) of the Act, the burden ia upon the CommD-
1ioners, before they could amend 
the valuation 
and assessment already 
made, to establish that the previous assessment was incorrectly made by 
r-~ason. of fraud. mis-rcprcscnta~ion or mistake. 
(472 G] 
C!vn. A.Pl'el.UTB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 812 or 
1963. 
.. 
B 
• 
c 
• 
A 
D 
F 
G 
• 
H 
' 
B 
c 
D 
> 
E 
I 
F 
• 
G 
H 
SHYAM KISHORI v. MUNIC. CORP. (Subba Rao, I.) 
467 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 21, 1959 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Ap-
pellate Decree No. 1766 of 1954. 
Ramanugrah and Mohan Behari Lal, for the appellant. 
S. P. Varma, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sobba Rao. J. This appeal by special leave raises the ques-
tion of the true construction of sub·s. (!) of s. 117 of the Bihar 
and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B. & 0. Act 7 of 1922), herein· 
after called the Act. 
Shrimati Shyam Kishori Devi, the appellant, is the owner of 
premises known as "Krishna Bhawan" situate on Fraser Road 
in the Town of Patna. Originally it bore holding No. 239, but 
after the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1952, was passed it 
was given holding No. 264 in Circle No. 6 of the Patna Munici· 
pal Corporation. On August 4, 1944, the Patna Municipality 
was superseded by the Government initially for a period of three 
years but the said period was extended from time to time till the 
Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1952, came into force. 
On 
March 29, 1946, the Government issued
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.