VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY versus KANDREGULA NUKARAJU & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 29-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

544 
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICifALITY 
v. 
KANDREGULA NUKARAJU & ORS. 
AugusJ 29, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh District. Municipalities Act (6 of 1965) ss. 3, 81, 83 and 
S<:hedu~e 9, Clause 12-Scope of-Inclusion of new areas within 1nunicipality-
lmposition of property tax on residents of those areas without ful/owi11g Pro-
cedure in s. 81-Propriety. 
Under s. 4(1)(c) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, lhe State Govern-
ment declared its intention to include within the lirnits of the appellant-muni-
cipality the local areas comprised in two villages. The 1920··Act was repealed 
by the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 which came into force on April 
2, 1965. 
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1965-Act corresponds to s. 4(1)(c) of the 
repealed Act. 
Under s.3(3), the Government may include within a municipality 
a local area after considering any objections submitted by the residents of the 
local area, 
Under s. 3(4) the provisions of the 1965-Act conie huo force in 
that area on the first April, if that iSi the date of the notification under sub-s. (3) 
A 
B 
c 
.and in any other ca·:.e, the first day of April immedia·tely succeeding. The State 
Government, in exercise of Ns power under s. 3(3) of the 1965-Act, issued the 
notification in I\1urch 1966 including within the limits of the appellant munici-
pality the areas comprised in the two villages with effect from April I, 1966. 
D 
In 1970, the Municipal Council after considering objections, passed a reS-Olution 
for levying property tax on land and. buil.dings in the two villages with effect 
from October 1. 1970, but. the municipality issued notices to the respondo,;:nts, 
who were residents of those two villages, demaJtding the property tax i'rom them 
from April 1, 1966 the date of inclusion of the villages. 
The respondents there-
ll.pon challenged the
1 levy and the High Court upheld the challenge. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the appellant-municipality was 
~ntitled to demand the tax even from April 1, 1966, under cl. 12 of Schedule 
E 
9 of the 19-65-Act. 
This clause provided that any tax which was being lawfully 
levied by the municipal council at the 
comn1encentent of the 1965-Act 
and 
which may be lawfully levied under that ~\ct shall continue to be levied by 
the council unless the Government by general or special order directs other-
wise. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: ( 1) 'The inclusion of the two villages within the li1nits of 
the 
.appellant municipality is in order, because, under cl. 13 of Schedule 9 of the· 
1965-A<::t the notification issued under s. 4(1) of. tho 1920-Act must be deemed 
to have been issued under s. 3 (l) of the 1965-Act. [547 D-F] 
(2) However, clause 12 of Schedule 9 cannot justify the imposition of the 
tax under the repealed Act of 1920. from April 1, 1966, on property situate· 
in the newly included areas. [548 B-C] 
(a) The clause is of a transitional nature and its object is to authorise the 
levy of taxes which, at the co1n111encenie111 of the 1965-A ct. were levied under 
!he repealed law. 
That is, in the present case, if any tax etc. was being law-
fully levied by the appellant on April 1, 1966, (which was the date of com-
mencement of the Act in the two villag\!s) and if it can be lawfully levied under 
the 1965-Act, it can continue to be levied. 
But on April 1, 1966. no tax at all 
was being levied by or on behalf of the appellant on the property situate in the 
two villages included within the municipality on that date. 
Therefore, the appel-
fant had no occasion or power to direct that a property tax may continue to be 
levied on those properties, and hence cl. 12 has no app1ication. [548 C-E] 
(b) It cannot be urged that because 
the 
appellant was levying pro-
perty tax on property situate within its limits (other than the 2 villages) the 
property tax was not being levied for the first time. Qua the two villages newly 
F 
G 
H 
~ 
j 
.. 
.,, 
I ... 
• 
~· 
1(; 
A 
B 
c 
·~ 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNIC. V. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, J.) 545 
includeQ in the municipal limits, the tax was being imposed for the first time, 
and therefore. it was incumbent upon the municipality to follow the procedure 
prescribed by the first proviso to s. 81(2), because, the residents of those areas 
had no opportunity to object to the imposition of tax or for the municipality 
to invite objec_tions and consider them. [549 C-E] 
, 
(3) 

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