Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
1. Since these Writ Appeals are filed against the common order dated 27th/ 28th January 1997 made by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants, all these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this order.
2.The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4890 of 1999 is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Market Committee'), Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. The said appellant has been established under the provisions of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966; (hereinafter referred to as 'the APMC Act'). The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4569 of 1999 is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangarpet, Kolar District, and the Appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 2981-82 of 1997 are the Mandi Merchants and Commission Agents registered under the provisions of APMC Act and they are carrying on their trading activities in the respective premises situated at APMC Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. In these appeals all the appellants have called in question the correctness of the Order dated 27th/28th January 1997 made in Writ Petition No. 20457 of 1992 and connected Writ Petitions passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The only question that would arise for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether the Corporation of City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is precluded from imposing and collecting tax on buildings or lands or on both, situated within the Market Committees by virtue of Section 504 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
4. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the rival submissions made, has taken the view that Section 504 of the Act would not render the entire Act inapplicable in respect of the market established under the APMC Act. However, he has further, held that the buildings or lands belonging to the Market Committee which is the deemed local authority, by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the APMC Act, are exempted from the property tax so long as they remain with the Market Committee and do not belong to any person in pursuance of grant, allotment or lease made. He has rejected the contention of the appellants that by virtue of Section 504 of the Act, the Markets established under the provisions of the APMC Act are not liable for payment of property tax.
5. Sri B.G. Sridharan and Sri M.R. Shailendra learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants strongly urged that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that Section 504 of the Act would not render the Act inapplicable in respect of the markets established under the APMC Act, is erroneous in law.
6. However, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation and Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State strongly supporting the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, submitted that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on Section 504 of the Act being correct, the order impugned does not call for interference in this Appeal. It is their submission that Section 504 of the Act only makes the provisions of the Act in so far as it relates to the market and other premises established under the APMC Act is inapplicable. It is their further submission that since Chapter -X of the Act, which provides for procedure for levying various types of taxes and the imposition of such taxes does not relate to the market and other premises, the Corporation is entitled to levy the tax on buildings or lands or on both, situated in the City. It is also their contention that since admittedly the market area is located within the limits of the Corporation, in exercise of the power conferred on the Corporation under Section 103 of the Act, the Corporation is entitled to impose the tax in question and as such the demand made in the impugned notices issued are unassailable by the appellants.
7. In the light of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, as noticed by us earlier, the question that would emerge for our consideration is as to whether the order impugned, passed by the learned Single Judge, calls for interference by us in this appeal?
8. Before we proceed to consider the rival submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties we feel that it is desirable to briefly refer to the provisions of the Act and the APMC Act. Chapter X of the Act refers to Enumeration of Taxes. Section 103 of the Act confers power on the Corporation, subject to the general or special orders of Government, to levy tax on buildings or lands or on both situated within the Corporation area and various other types of taxes referred to in the said provision; Section 104 provides for procedure to be followed by the Corporation before levying a tax; Section 107 provides for power of the Corporation to suspend, reduce or abolish any existing tax; Section 109 provides for method of assessment of property tax; Section 110 provides for exemptions from levy of property tax; Section 110(k) exempts buildings or lands belonging to the Local Authority and various other authorities referred to in the said Section, the possession of which has not been delivered to any person, in pursuance of any grant or allotment or lease from levy of property tax.
9. Sub-sections 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 45 and 46 of Section 2 of the APMC Act defines Market and Market yard etc. It is useful to extract the said Sub-Sections of Section 2 of the APMC Act, which read as follows:
'2(18) 'Market' means any notified area declared (or deemed to be declared) to be a market under this Act;
2(19) 'Market area' means any area declared to be a market area under Section 4;
2(20) 'Market Committee' or 'Committee; means a market committee constituted for a market area under this Act;
2(21) xxx xxx
2(22) 'Market sub-yard' means a specified place declared (or deemed to be declared) to be a market sub-yard under this Act.
2(23) 'Market yard' means a specified place declared (or deemed to be declared) to be a market yard under this Act;
2(24) to 2(27) xxx xxx
2(28) 'Notified agricultural produce' means any agricultural produce which the State Government has by notification issued under Sections 4 and 5 declared as an agricultural produce the marketing of which shall be regulated in the market area;
2(29) to 2(44) xx xx xx
2(45) 'Sub-market' means a specified area declared (or deemed to be declared) to be a sub-market under this Act;
2(46) 'Sub-market yard' means a specified place declared (or deemed to be declared) to be a sub-market yard under this Act'
Section 504 of the Act, on which strong reliance is placed by the Counsel for the Appellants, reads as follows:
'504. The provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 not affected - The provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to markets and other premises shall not be applicable to any market established under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 and the provisions of this Act with respect to any other market shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the said Act.'
10. As noticed by us earlier, the reading of Section 504 of the Act, to our mind makes it clear that the provisions of the Act are made inapplicable only to the extent they relate to the markets and other premises established under the APMC Act. This is clear from the words used in the Section which states that 'the provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to markets and other premises'. The words 'in so far as' referred to in the Section has to be understood and interpreted to make the provisions of the Act inapplicable only to the extent they relate to market and other premises established under the APMC Act for which provisions have been specifically made in the APMC Act. The object and purpose of Section 504 of the Act is to explicitly state that in the event of any conflict, the provisions specifically made in the APMC Act will not be applicable. This is so because, APMC Act is a special enactment made for the purpose of better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce and the establishment and administration of markets for agriculture produce in the State. From the reading of various provisions in the Act, it is clear that the APMC Act intends to provide for better regulation of marketing of agriculture produce and the establishment and administration of Markets of agriculture produce in the State. Section 3 and 4 of the APMC Act empowers the State Government, by issuing a Notification, to notify any area as a market area for the purpose of regulating and marketing agricultural produce; Section 5 provides for alteration of market area and of items of regulated agricultural produce in the area; Section 6 provides that;
(1) (a) for every market area-
(i) there shall be a market ; and
(ii) there may be one or more sub-markets;
(b) for every market -
(i) there shall be a market yard, and
(ii) there may be one or more market sub-yards;
(c) For every sub-market there shall be one or more sub-market yards.
Section 7 provides for establishment of markets; Section 8 provides for control of marketing of agricultural produce after the market is established; Section 9 provides for establishment of Market Committee and its incorporation; Chapter- III of the APMC Act provides for the Constitution of the Market Committees; Chapter IV provides for conduct or Business by the Market Committees; Chapter -V provides for staff of the Market Committees; Chapter-VI provides for power and duties of the Market Committees; Chapter-VII provides for regulation of trading; Chapter-VIII provides for market fund; Chapter IX provides for establishment of independent markets and market committees for special commodities; Chapter -X provides for Mandal Panchayats to be as Agents of Market Committees; Chapter - XI provides for constitution of State Agricultural Marketing Board; Chapter -XII provides for penalties; Chapter XIII provides for Control of Market and Market Committee; Chapter -XIV provides for Miscellaneous provisions. Sections 63 ad 63A of the Act are relevant for our purpose. Section 63 of the Act provides for the powers and duties of the Market Committees. Sub-section (1) of said Section provides for the duties of the Market Committee. The same reads as follows:
'(i) to implement the provisions of this Act, the rules and bye-laws made thereunder in the market area;
(ii) to provide such facilities for (transport and marketing) of agricultural produce therein as the State Government may from time to time direct;
(iii) to do such other acts as may be required in relation to the superintendence, direction and control of markets or for regulating marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, and for that purpose may exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be provided by or under this Act.'
11. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the APMC Act provides for certain obligatory duties of the Market Committee; Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 63 provides for certain discretionary duties of the Market Committee; Section 63 (1)(i) empowers the State Government in any area where the APMC Act applies, to declare from such date and for such period as may be specified therein and subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the notification with the powers and functions of the Corporation, Municipal Council or a Mandal Panchayat or a Standing Committee thereof, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayath Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983. Section 63-A(1)(ii) provides that the State Government, may by means of Notification, empower the functions of the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner, Chief Officer of the Municipal Council or the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat, as the case may be, to discharge the duties of the Secretary of the Committee. The same provision provides that the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner, Chief Officer of the Municipal Council or the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be exercised and discharged by the Secretary of the Committee. Sub-section (2) of Section 63-A provides that on the making of the declaration under Sub-section (1), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Corporation, the Municipal Corporation or Chief Officer of the Municipal Council or the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayath shall not be competent to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred or imposed on the market committee and Secretary, as the case may be by such declaration. It is useful to extract Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 63-A of the Act, which reads as hereunder:
'63-A. The market committee and the Secretary to exercise powers and functions under the Karnataka Act Nos. 22 and 1964, 14 of 1976 and 20 of 1985 - (1) in any area or part thereof to which this Act applies, the State Government may, by notification, declare that from such date and for such period as may be specified therein and subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the notification;
(i) the powers and functions of the Corporation Municipal Council or a Mandal Panchayat or a Standing Committee thereof, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayath Samithis, Mandal Panchyats and Nyaya Panchyats Act, 1983, shall be exercised and discharged by the market committee; and
(ii) the powers and functions of the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner, Chief Officer of the Municipal Council or the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be exercised and discharged by the Secretary;
Provided that the Corporation, the Municipal Council or the Mandal Panchayat concerned shall be consulted before the making of such declaration, if such area or part thereof lies within the limits of a city or a town municipality or a mandal.
(2) On the making of the declaration under Sub-section (1), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Corporation, the Municipal Council or the Mandal Panchayat or any Standing Committee thereof or the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Municipal Corporation or Chief Officer of the Municipal Council or the Secretary of the Mandal Panchayat shall not be competent to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred or imposed on the market committee and Secretary, as the case may be, by such declaration.'
12. The learned Counsel for the Appellants are unable to dispute that the APMC Act has not conferred power either on the Market Committee or any other authority created under the Act to levy he property tax on buildings or lands located in the market area. Section 103 of the Act as noticed by us earlier, confers power on the Corporation to impose property tax on buildings or lands or on both, located within the limits of the Bangalore City Corporation. It is not in dispute that the area notified by the State Government, in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 4 of the Act, as market area, which is being managed by the Market committee is located within the limits of the Corporation. Under these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that in the absence of Section 504 of the Act, the Corporation would be entitled to levy property tax on buildings or lands or on both located within the area of market committee subject to the exemption provided under Section 110(k) of the Act.
13. Now, the question is, whether Section 504 of the Act makes the provisions of the entire Act inapplicable with regard to the markets and other premises established under the APMC Act? In our opinion, as noticed by us earlier, the provisions of the entire Act are not made inapplicable in respect of the markets and other premises established in any market under the APMC Act. Section 504 of the Act only makes such of those provisions of the Act in so far as they relate to markets and other premises established under the APMC Act where specific provisions are made inapplicable. In other words, the provisions in the Act are made inapplicable only to the extent where specific provisions, similar to the one contained in the Act, is made in the APMC Act. Therefore, in the absence of the provisions similar to the provisions contained in Chapter -X of the Act is provided for in the APMC Act, the Corporation is not deprived of its right to levy and collect taxes as provided under Chapter -X of the Act.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, BANGALORE v. H. NARAYANAIAH etc. while considering the meaning of expression 'in so far as' provided under Section 27 of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act (1945), has held that ' in so far as they are specifically mentioned' means what is not either expressly or by a necessary implication, excluded must be applied. It is useful to refer to the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 22 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
There was some argument on the meaning of the words 'so far as they are applicable', used in Section 27 of the Bangalore Act. These words cannot be changed into 'in so far as they are specifically mentioned' with regard to the procedure in the Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the obvious intention, in using these words, was to exclude only those provisions of the Acquisition Act which become inapplicable because of any special procedure prescribed by the Bangalore Act (e.g. Section 16) corresponding with that found in the Acquisition Act (e.g. Section 4(1)). These words bring in or make applicable, so far as this is reasonably possible, general provisions such as Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act. They cannot be reasonably construed to exclude the application of any general provisions of the Acquisition Act. They amount to laying down the principle that what is not either expressly, or, by a necessary implication, excluded must be applied. It is surprising to find misconstruction of what did not appeal to us to be reasonably open to more than one interpretation.'
15. We are of the view, as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, that, Section 504 of the Act is brought into legislation to prevent the conflict between the enforcement of the Act by the Corporation and of the APMC Act by the Committee in exercise of their respective powers to levy and collect taxes on the buildings and land located wherein the market Committee is licensed to levy penalties in relation to trade and commerce carried out under the licences issued by the respective authorities and further to regulate the procedure for construction and maintenance of building in the respective area. The imposition of tax on buildings is a power vested in the Corporation and in the absence of such power vested in the market committee, it is not possible to take the view that the power of the Corporation to collect building tax is excluded in view of Section 504 of the Act. In our view, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, BANGALORE (supra) can be usefully applied while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 504 of the Act; and if it is so applied, the provisions of the Act are made inapplicable only in so far as they relate to market and other premises established under the APMC Act. The learned Single Judge, on elaborate consideration of the submissions made by the parties, has in our view, rightly negatived the contention of the appellants that in view of Section 504 of the Act, the Chapter -X of the Act is also inapplicable in so far as the Market established and the premises located in the area of the market committee and the notice issued demanding the tax are liable to be declared as without authority of law. We do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, which requires our intervention in these appeals. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the buildings or lands belonging to the market committee which is a deemed local authority by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the APMC Act are exempted from property tax so long as they remain with the market committee and not delivered to any person in pursuance of grant, allotment or lease in the light of the exemption provided under Clause (k) of Section 110 of the Act.
16. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no merit in these appeals and they are liable to be rejected. Accordingly they are rejected. However, no order is made as to costs.