LexTHE CANTONMENT BOARD, AMBALA CANTT. versus DIPAK PARKASH AND OTHEHS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
A;ril 8.
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
THE CANTONIIIENT BOARD, AMBALA CANTT.
v.
DIPAK PARKASH AND OTHEHS
(J. L. KAPUH, K. C. DAS GuPrA and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
House Tax-Occupation of building by Military Oflicer
whether occupation of Crnfral Government-Cantonment Acts, J.924
(20 of 1924), ss. 66, 84 (2), 9n(2)-Cantonmenl-' (House Accom-
modation) Act, 1923 (6 of 1923), ss. 5, 6, 7, 11, 12.
One-half of bungalow No. 127-B, Bank Road, Ambala
Cantt., was taken on lease by the Central Govrrnment and was
being used by some Military Officer for his residence. The
Assessment Committee of the Canton~ent Board, Ambala,
made an assessment of house-tax but the ac;sessm~nt list was
signed Originally by three out of four persons who formed the
assessment committee and was signed by the fourth a few days
later.
The officer hearing the appeal entertained reasonable
doubt and made a reference to the High Court under s.84(2)
of the Cantonments Act, 1924, for the decision of those
questions. The questions referred to the High Court were :-
(1)
Whether the occupation of the property by a
Military Officer amounts' to a user thereof for public
purposes.
(2)
Whether the occupation of the Military Officer
of tbe portion of the bungalow appropriated under Act
VI of 1923 amounts to its occupation by the Central
Government within the meaning of s. 99(2)(f) of the
Cantonment Act, 1924.
(3)
Whether the authentication of assessment list in
the present form is valid as required by the provisions of
s. 96 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
The High Court answered the two question• in the
affirmative and the third in the negative. The opinion of
the High Court was that the occupation of the property by the
Military officer amounted to .. ser for public purpose and also
amounted to occupation by t11e Central Government and the
authentication was valid.
Against the decision of the High
Court on the second question, the Cantonment Board went
in appeal to the Supreme Court on the strength of a certificate
granted by the High Court.
1 S. c: R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS - 197
Held, that the building in question was in occupation?{
the Central Government through the Military Officer whom it
had permitted to reside in it.
Where the person entitled to
occupy, permits some other person to be in the building, he is
in accual occupation through the other person.
CrvIL APPELLATE JuRISDIC'l'ION: Civil Appeal
No. 538 of 1960.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
September 3, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in
Civil Reference No. 2 of 1956.
B. Sen, D. Gupta and P. D. Menon for the
appeJlant.
The respondent did not appear.
1962. April 3. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
19~1
The Cantonmml
Biard Ambala Cantl1
"•
Dipak Parkash
DAS GuPTA, J.-In an appeal against the
Du J.
assessment of house ta.x of bunga.low No. 127-B,
Bank Road, Ambala Cantonment, by the assessment
committee of the Cantonment Board, Ambala, three
questions arose as regards the liability of the
asseesee on which the officer hearing the appeal
entertained reasonable doubt and accordingly made
a reference to the High Court of Punjab under
a. 84: (2) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, for the deri-
sion of these questions.
Admittedly half of this BungalOw had been
appropriated under the provisions of the Cantonments
(House Accommodation) Act No. VI of 1923 on a
lease by the Central Government and was being
used at the relevant tilll_e by some military officer for
his residence. It was also admitted that the assess•
ment list was signed originally by three of the four
persons who formed the assessment committee and
w&s signed by the fourth member a few days later.
The tWPellate officer set out these circumstances in
1962
The Cantonment
Board Amhala Gantt .
••
Dipak P"rkash
Dtu J,
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J 963]
his statement and then formulated the three questions
thus:-
"l. Whether the occupation of the pro-
perty by a Military Officer under the above
circumstances amounts to user thereof for the
public purpose.
2.
Whether the occupation of the Military
off!,cer of tho portion of the Bungalow appro-
priated under Act No. 6 of 1923 amounts to its
occupation by the Central Government, within
the meaning of s. 99 (2)(6) of the Cantonments
Act, 1924.
3. Whether the authentication of the
Assessment list in the present case is valid as
required by the provisions of Section 69,
Cantonments AcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.