ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. As all these cases relate to assessment of municipal tax of Deoghar Municipality, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order,
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all the writ application is that Deoghar Municipality has arbitrarily enhanced the municipal tax, as affirmed by the appellate committee in some of the cases.
3. To determine the issue, it is desirable to notice the relevant prayer and facts of the individual cases, as mentioned hereunder :
W.P. (C) No. 5014/01
This petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27th January, 1999, whereby, the Deoghar Municipality has increased the municipal tax by revision of assessment with effect from 1.4.1998.
The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land appertaining to Holding No. 213 (New), Ward No. 12 within Deoghar Municipal Area from one Sri Dhirendra Nath Rai vide sale deed No. 3153 dated 31st December, 1997. He was paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 52.87 p. per quarter. The respondents have revised the assessment and enhanced it to Rs. 1157.50 p. per quarter, without hearing him.
Further case of the petitioner is that the objection raised by him against the assessment under Sections 116 and 118 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act. 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1922' for short) has not been decided by the authorities as per law.
W.P. (C) No. 4493 of 2003
This petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, whereby, he has been asked to pay the municipal tax of Rs. 11,625/-, k1 the quarterly tax of Rs. 76.50 p. having been enhanced to Rs. 775.00 p. This petitioner has also challenged the earlier notice dated 28th January, 1999 and appellate order dated 28th May, 2002, whereby and whereunder, his appeal has been dismissed.
According to the petitioner, he is having a house over Holding No. 78 (New), corresponding to Holding No. 71 (Old) in Ward No. 13 under the Deoghar Municipal Area. In terms of assessment, made by the Municipality, he was regularly paying the Holding tax at the rate of Rs. 76.50 p. per quarter. The Municipality was dissolved under Section 385 of the Act, 1922, vide Notification No. 1202, dated 8th June, 1995. The Municipality after notice dated 28th January, 1999 enhanced the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 775.00 p. quarterly.
W.P. (C) No. 5654 of 2001
Petitioners in this case while challenged the appellate orders all dated 30th November, 2000, as contained in Annexure 5 series, have also challenged the demand notices all dated 21st January, 2001, as contained in Annexure 6 series.
According to the petitioners, a piece of land measuring 19 katthas and 15 dhurs, appertaining to Municipal Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal Area was held, owned and possessed by petitioner No. 1, namely, Maharaja Pratap Singh. Said petitioner No. 1 transferred his 1/4th share out of the said land to petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pratibha Manjri Devi vide sale deed dated 12th May, 1980, which was carved out as Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal area. Petitioner No. 1 Maharaja Pratap Singh also gifted 1/4th of the undivided share of the said land to petitioner No. 3 Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 12th May, 1980, which was carved out as Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal Area.
The municipal tax of Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New), within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 105.80 p. annually, which was paid by petitioner No. 1 regularly. The municipal tax of Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 53.20 p. annually which petitioner No. 2 was paying regularly. Similarly the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New), within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 53.20 p. annually, which was being paid by petitioner No. 3 regularly.
Their grievance is that the Municipality after revision of assessment, enhanced the municipal tax of Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New) from Rs. 105.80 p. annually to Rs. 1321.00 p. quarterly with effect from 1.4.1998. Similarly the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) was enhanced from Rs. 53.20 p. annually to Rs. 528.75 p. quarterly whereas the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New) within Ward No. 5 was enhanced from Rs. 53.20 p. annually to Rs. 352.50 p. quarterly.
The appeal(s), preferred by the petitioners has/have also been rejected by the appellate committee without following the procedures prescribed under Chapter IV of the Act, 1922 vide orders all dated 30th November, 2000.
W.P. (C) No. 68 of 2002
Petitioner in the present case has challenged, the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000 whereby he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 9240.80 p. as municipal tax as arrears for the period 1999-2000 and the first quarter of the year 2000-2001.
According to the petitioner, the building in question was originally recorded in the name of one Kanai Lal Chakravarty, which was inherited by the petitioner along with his two brothers, namely, Pradeep Chakravarty and Sandip Chakravarty. The ground floor of the house has been rented out to the tenants at the rate of Rs. 525/-per month. The first floor is kept under lock and key as the petitioner and his brothers occasionally visit Deoghar. The municipal tax of the premises was initially assessed at the rate of Rs. 205.60 p. per year, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 211.60 p. annually i.e. Rs. 52.90 p. quarterly.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the municipal tax of one part out of the four parts of the premises has been enhanced arbitrarily by the respondents from Rs. 51.50 p. quarterly to Rs. 110.80-p. quarterly. However, in respect to other parts it has been enhanced 24 times. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 24th April, 1999. Subsequently, the impugned demand notice has been issued on 13th November, 2000.
Though the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000, he has not challenged either the original order of assessment or the appellate order and a vague pleading has been made by him.
W.P. (C) No. 426 of 2001
This petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate committee dated 24th April. 1989 and the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellate committee has rejected the appeal and the Municipality has issued the impugned demand notice for Rs. 3783.80 p. and Rs. 1200.00 p.
The case of the petitioner is that the house in question situated within Ward No. 18 of Old Holding Nos. 12 and 13, corresponding to New Holding Nos. 126 and 127, was originally recorded in the name of her father late Brindawan Sharan Mishra. After his death, the petitioner with her sister Ganga Mishra inherited the property. The house constructed over both the Holdings, comprise of two floors having five bed-rooms, two kitchens, three toilets, two bath-rooms and four open verandahs. A new construction has also been made in New Holding No. 127, comprising of one room, two kitchens and three verandahs, which has been let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Some new construction has also been made on New Holding No. 126, comprising of two shops, which have been let out on rent of Rs. 200/- per month each. The residential portion of the house is kept under the lock and key, as the petitioner and her sister occasionally stay when they visit Deoghar.
Previously the municipal tax of the premises was assessed at the rate of Rs. 92.60 p., which has been enhanced arbitrarily. She having come to know about the same, filed appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate committee vide order dated 18th February, 1999, whereinafter, the demand notice has been issued on 15th January, 2000.
In this case also vague pleadings have been made. Neither the details of assessment has been given nor it has been show as to which are the years for which demand notices have been issued.
W.P. (C) No. 1307 of 2002
This petitioner though prays for issuance of a writ(s) or direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to why the revised municipal assessment with regard to her Holding No. 346(Old), corresponding to Holding No. 474(New) of Ward No. 9 within Deoghar Municipal Area be not quashed and a fresh assessment as per law be not made, has not challenged the assessment order nor has challenged the appellate order and the demand notice.
According to the petitioner, she used to pay municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 105.70 p. per annum, which has been revised and enhanced to Rs. 436.48 p. per quarter, and the demand notice was issued on 30th February, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 9132.20 p., including the arrears for the year 1993-94 to 1996-97, though she has paid the municipal tax for the aforesaid period.
Her grievance is that the municipal tax, which was originally assessed at Rs. 8.81 p. per quarter has already been raised from time to time and enhanced to Rs. 436.48 p, per quarter. Subsequently it has been enhanced to Rs. 537.90 p. and then to Rs. 616.85 p. per quarter.
The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate committee, which was rejected. Her further grievance is that the authorities have not yet handed over the appellate order to the petitioner, in spite of requests, made by her husband. ,
The petitioner has not enclosed any document, relating to assessment of the earlier period except one or other demand notice. The detailed statement has not been made relating to the premises nor it is suggested as to why it was enhanced from one year to another. It is not clear whether the petitioner has extended the constructed portion of her building area or not.
W.P. (C) No. 2314 of 2002
Although this petitioner has challenged the appellate order, passed by the appellate committee and the demand notice, he has not enclosed the copy of the appellate order with the writ petition. From one of the enclosures, it appears that though the petitioner requested to supply the copy of the appellate order, it has not been supplied to him.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the house, having Holding No. 27, Ward No. 7, situated within Deoghar Municipality. The said house is a three storied building comprising each floor of 12 ft. x 25 ft., consisting three rooms and two smalls hops. Earlier the holding tax was assessed at the rate of Rs. 28.90 p. quarterly but it has now been raised to Rs. 176.25 p. quarterly and Rs. 705/-. The valuation of holding has also been raised from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 2000/- and the demand was raised accordingly for realization of the holding tax at the new rate. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 11th March, 1999, affirming the order of assessment.
W.P. (C) No. 5089 of 2002
Petitioner in this, writ petition has challenged the order, passed by the appellate committee dated 22nd March, 1999, assessment order and the demand notice for the year, 1998-99.
According to the petitioner, he is the holder of property having Holding No. 244 and 273 under Ward No. 7 of Deoghar Municipality. Earlier the holding tax was assessed at the rate of Rs. 93.13 p. and Rs. 372.48 p. annually, which he used to pay. Another assessment of the said holding was made in the year, 1986-87 when it was assessed to Rs. 1490/- per annum. It was reduced to Rs. 573.80 p. per annum in pursuance of an order, passed in an appeal, preferred by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have re-assessed the tax of those holdings for the year, 1998-99 and have raised demand of Rs. 3504.80 p. per annum.
W.P. (C) No. 6275 of 2002
The writ petitioner in this case has challenged the order dated 12th September, 2002, passed by the appellate committee, whereby the appellate committee has affirmed the amount, finally assessed, i.e. Rs. 35000/- for the building, situated over Holding No. 494 of Ward No. 12 under Deoghar Municipality. The annual tax has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 3084.40 p. quarterly. According to the petitioner, he is the legally rightful owner of Holding No. 494, Ward No. 12 and was running the hotel in the name and style of Chetna Hotel. The aforesaid hotel business was closed by him since 1st April, 1998 and since then the premises is lying vacant. He was paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 2983.60 p. per annum, which was increased to Rs. 5287.50 p. quarterly i.e. Rs. 21148/- per annum. When the petitioner preferred appeal, after hearing the parties, the appellate committee finally assessed the value at Rs. 35,000/- and brought down the holding tax from Rs. 5287.50 p. to Rs. 3084.40 p. quarterly i.e. Rs. 12,337/-annually in place of earlier assessment of Rs. 21,148/-.
W.P. (C) No. 6730 of 2002
In this case demand notice dated 16th January, 2002, issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, has been challenged by the petitioner whereby and whereunder, the municipal tax of Rs. 15243.40 p.. including the arrears, has been demanded from the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner of a building having Holding No. 709/ 388, Ward No. 8 within Deoghar Municipal Area. Earlier the municipal tax used to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 153/- per annum. The respondents vide notice dated 20th December, 1999 revised the rate and fixed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 793.15 p. per quarter with effect from 1.4.1998, followed by the demand notice dated 16th January, 2002, as referred above.
According to the petitioner, the revision of municipal tax, as enhanced, is arbitrary and. against the provisions of the Act.
W.P. (C) No. 397 of 2003
In this case, the petitioner has only challenged the decision of the appellate committee dated 12th September, 2002, whereby, the holding tax has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per annum.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the revised assessment of the holding tax is arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he used to pay tax at the rate of Rs. 35.25 p. per annum which was revised to Rs. 1057.60 p. per annum. On the application, preferred by the petitioner under Sections 116 and 118 of the Act, 1922, the committee heard and fixed it at Rs. 1800/- per annum, without any basis.
W.P. (C) No. 1122 of 2003
Petitioner in this case has challenged the demand notice of holding tax in respect of her house, having Holding No. 274, Ward No. 15, situated with Deoghar Municipal Area. The petitioner was also paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 52.36 p. per quarter, which has been raised to Rs. 174.40 p. per quarter with effect from 1.4.1998 and she has been asked to pay holding tax in the revised rate, including the arrears, amounting to Rs. 2092.80 p. and Rs. 2626.00 p. for different periods, vide Annexure 6 series.
W.P. (C) No. 1647 of 2003
This petitioner, who is the owner of a building, situated over Holding No. 178 (Old)/ 194 (New), Ward No. 19 within Deoghar Municipal Area, has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by Deoghar Municipality, whereby, he has been asked to pay holding tax at the rate of Rs. 1366,25 p. per annum, in place of old assessment at the rate of Rs. 114.80 p. per annum.
According to the petitioner, the revised enhanced assessment of holding tax is arbitrary, which is twelve times more than the last assessment.
W.P. (C) No. 1667 of 2003
The case of this petitioner is also similar. He being the owner of a building having Holding No. 171 (Old)/193(New) Ward No. 13 within Deoghar Municipality, has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003. In his case the holding tax which he used to pay at the rate of Rs. 99.32 p. annually has been revised, enhanced and assessed at the rate of Rs. 871.87 p. per annum, which, according to the petitioner, is nine times more than the last assessment. The decision of the appellate committee has not been challenged in the instant case.
W.P. (C) No. 1668 of 2003
The case of the petitioner is that the Deoghar Municipality earlier assessed the holding tax of Holding No. 86/1(Old)/100 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area, at the rate of Rs. 78.50 p. per annum. By the impugned demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, the Deoghar Municipality has demanded holding tax in the revised, enhanced and assessed rate of Rs. 968.75 p. per annum, which is fifteen times more than the last assessment.
W.P. (C) No. 1678 of 2003
This case relates to revised assessment of holding tax in respect of a building, having Holding No. 85 (Old)/92 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area.
According to the petitioner, as per last assessment he used to pay holding tax @ Rs. 38.30 p. per annum, which has now been enhanced to Rs. 926.25 p. per annum, which is 26 times more than the last assessment.
The demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 is under challenge.
W.P. (C) No. 1679 of 2003
In the present case, earlier the assessment of the holding tax of the building in question, having Holding No. 176(Old)/l92 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within the Deoghar Municipal Area, was assessed @ Rs. 52,90 p. per annum, which has now been enhanced to Rs. 1541/- per annum i.e. 24 times more than the last assessment.
In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the Deoghar Municipality.
W.P. (C) No. 1762 of 2003
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 24th April, 1998, whereby the Deoghar Municipality has asked the petitioner to pay the holding tax @ Rs. 600/- per annum in respect to Holding No. 61 (old No. 44), Ward No. 6, within Deoghar Municipal Area.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the revision of holding tax is arbitrary as it has been raised from Rs. 76.50 p. per quarter to Rs. 600/- per quarter.
W.P; (C) No. 1772 of 2003
The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the respondents, whereby and whereunder, he has been directed to deposit the Municipal Tax of Rs. 17,442/-on account of holding tax and other taxes for the period 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2002-03, Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to produce the demand notice, whereby the assessment of the petitioner's Holding No. 19, situated in Ward No. 13, within Deoghar Municipal Area as been increased from Rs. 46.61 p. quarterly to Rs- 968.'25 p. quarterly.
According to the petitioner, he owns and possesses a building over the aforesaid Holding No. 19. The revision of Municipal Tax has been made arbitrarily, in violation of different provisions of the Act, 1922. This petitioner has given example of one or other building/house, situated at the adjoining area, to suggest that the assessment of the Municipal Tax of the petitioner is exorbitant, as compared with the assessment of the Municipal Tax made in respect of other buildings situated over the same area.
W.P. (C) No. 1774 of 2003
The case of the petitioner is similar to the previous case i.e. W.P. (C) No. 1772 of 2003. In this case the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 whereby the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit the municipal tax of Rs. 23,250/- for the periods 1998- 99, 2001-02 and 2002-03 in respect of Holding No. 17, Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area. He has also challenged the notice of assessment dated 28th January, 1999, whereby the assessment of municipal tax was raised from Rs. 38.20 p. to Rs. 1162.50 p. per quarter. Similar demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 22,282/- and notice of assessment dated 28th January, 1999 in respect of petitioner's house, situated over Holding No. 72, Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal area, is under challenge. In respect of this Holding No. 72 the assessment of municipal tax has been increased from Rs. 52.90 p. per quarter to Rs. 1162.50 p. per quarter.
According to the petitioner, the application filed by him under Section 116 of the Act, 1922 has not been decided by the respondents in proper aspect.
W.P. (C) No. 1775 of 2003
In this case the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the respondent Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, whereby, she has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,565/- as municipal tax for the years 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2002-03 in respect of the premises, having Holding No. 7, situated in Ward No, 13, within Deoghar Municipal Area. She has also challenged the notice of assessment dated 25th January, 1999, whereby, the municipal tax has been re- assessed and enhanced from Rs. 47.85 p. per quarter to Rs. 775/- per quarter with effect from 1st April, 1998.
In this case also the grievance has been made that though the petitioner filed an application under Section 116 of the Act, 1922, it has not been decided by the competent authority.
W.P. (C) No. 3204 of 2003
Petitioners Shambhu Prasad and another, not being satisfied with the re-assessment of holding tax, have challenged the notice dated 29th January, 1999 and the decision dated 16th October, 2000, whereby, the appellate committee has finally assessed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 1057.53 p. quarterly with effect from 1st April, 1998.
According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the premises, having Holding No. 532 within Ward No. 12 of Deoghar Municipal Area and were paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 141/- per annum till 1997-98, which was increased on re- assessment to Rs. 1075.12 p. per quarter. On an application, preferred by the petitioners, the appellate committee fixed it at the rate of Rs. 1057.50 p.per quarter.
W.P. (C) No. 1954 of 2001
This writ petitioner has been preferred by the petitioner against the notice of assessment of municipal tax dated 28th January, 1999 as also the decision of the appellate committee dated 31st October, 2000. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the premises having Holding No. 5, situated within Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area, has raised a grievance against the enhancement of municipal tax, enhanced from Rs. 749,10 p. quarterly to Rs. 8788.43 p. per quarter.
It appears that the respondents have assessed the holding tax in respect to the holding in question from time to time, initially and it was assessed at the rate of Rs. 642.15 p. quarterly and then re-assessed and enhanced to Rs. 749.10 p. quarterly. When recent assessment was made in the year, 1998-99 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate committee, which passed the final order on 31st October, 1999. Subsequently, when demand notice was issued, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 784 of 2001. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th February, 2001 directed the appellate committee to hear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated that the appellate committee had already taken decision, which was communicated to him on 17th April, 2001.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the re-assessment is arbitrary and without any basis.
W.P. (C) No. 3041 of 2003
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, whereby and whereunder, he has been asked to pay a sum of RS. 7,730/-towards the municipal tax, inclusive of the arrears for the period 1998-99 to 2001-02 in respect of the premises having Holding No. 211 (New), situated within Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the municipal tax, which was earlier fixed at the rate of Rs. 96.53 p. per annum has now been enhanced to Rs. 1550.00 per annum, which is arbitrary and is about 16 times more than last assessed amount.
W.P. (C) No. 3060 of 2003
This case relates to the premises, having Holding No. 13 (New)/12(Old), Ward No. 7, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area.
Earlier the respondents had assessed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 306.00 per annum but since 1998 it has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1162.60 p. per annum.
According to the petitioner, the enhancement is four times more than the earlier assessment, on the basis of which demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 has been issued,
W.P. (C) No. 2950 of 2003
The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 whereby and whereunder, he has been asked to pay the municipal tax at the enhanced re-assessed rate.
According to the petitioner, earlier the municipal tax for the premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 92.30 p. per annum, which he was paying regularly but since 1998 it has been enhanced arbitrarily at the rate of Rs. 1889.25 p.
According to the petitioner, the enhancement of the municipal tax about 20 times more than the last assessment is not only arbitrary but is also violative of the provisions of law.
W.P. (C) No. 3471 of 2002
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28th February, 1998. According to the petitioner, the respondents have enhanced the municipal tax from Rs. 14.35 p. quarterly to Rs. 135.36 p. quarterly in respect of the premises, having Holding No. 20, situated within Ward No. 2 of Deoghar Municipal Area. Thought the petitioner has filed an application for information but details have not been communicated to -him.
W.P. (C) No. 1523 of 2003
Petitioners in this case have challenged the decision of the appellate committee of Deoghar Municipality dated 7th May, 1999, whereby and whereunder, the municipal tax has been finally assessed at the rate of Rs. 23,053.150.
The case of the petitioners is that they are running hotel in the name and style of Prabha Hotel Complex and were paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 286.86 p. quarterly but it has been increased to Rs. 23,053.15 p. since 1st April, 1998. The petitioners moved before the appellate committee on 11th March, 1999, which vide its order dated 7th May, 1999 assessed the net value of the hotel as Rs. 2,25,000/- and raised the tax to Rs. 23,053.15 p.
4. Counsel for the petitioners while relied on different Sections of the Act, 1922, made following submissions :
(i) The respondents have neither given any reasoning nor have shown any basis to assess the tax.
(ii) There is no procedure laid down relating to methodology of assessment of holding tax.
(iii) The entire exercise, as required to be done under the Act, 1922, has not been followed.
(iv) The assessment of fair rent and holding tax has been made by the respondent/its officials while sitting in their office.
(v) The index of fair rent areawise, roadwise etc. has not been fixed prior to revision of assessment.
(vi) The assessment of municipal tax/holding tax, as made in one or other case, is excessive, unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary.
5. To determine the issues, it would be proper to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act, 1922.
Chapter IV deals with municipal taxation i.e. imposition of tax Section 82 deals with the power of the Municipality to impose tax, including holding tax, latrine tax, water tax, education cess, medical cess etc. In the matter of imposition of tax, it is only to be ensured that the taxation is reasonable and not arbitrary so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
There are certain restrictions imposed under the Act, 1922, such as, restriction on imposition of tax of holdings, as provided under Section 84. Under the said provision the tax of holdings shall not be imposed at a rate, exceeding 12-1/2 per centum on the annual value of the holding. Section 85 puts certain restrictions on the imposition of water and lighting charges, which reads as follows :
'85. Restrictions on the imposition of the water and lighting taxes.--The imposition of a water tax or of a lighting tax shall be subject to the following restrictions, namely :--
(a) that the tax shall be imposed only on holding within an area for the supply of water to which, or for the lighting of which, as the case may be, a scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government;
(b) that the tax shall not be imposed on land used exclusively for purposes of agriculture, on any holding consisting only of tanks; or, in the case of the water tax, on any holding no part of which is within a radius to be fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting from the nearest stand-pipe of other supply of water available to the public;
(c) that the rate of the annual value of holdings at which the tax may be imposed shall not exceed twelve and a half per centum in the case of the water-tax, or three per centum in the case of the lighting tax;
(d) that in fixing the rate at which the tax is to be imposed regard shall be had to the principle that the total net proceeds of the tax together with the estimated income from payments for water or. lighting, as the case may be, supplied from the works under special contract or otherwise, shall not exceed the amount required for making, extending or maintaining the water-supply or lighting system, as the case may be, together with an amount sufficient to meet the proportionate share of the cost of supervision and collection as fixed under Section 69 and the repayment of, and payment of interest on, any loan incurred in connection with any such supply or system;
(e) that the tax shall not be leviable until a supply of water has been provided in the area to be supplied, or until the lamps in the area to be lighted have been lighted, as the case may be, in the execution of the scheme adopted under Chapter IX, nor shall the tax be leviable for any quarter or portion of a quarter antecedent to the provision of such water supply or lighting.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commissioners from making any special arrangement consistent with this Act for a supply of water or electric current or gas to persons residing beyond the radius fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting.
(3) With the sanction of the State Government, the amount of the water tax may vary with the distance of holdings from the nearest stand-pipe or other sources of water-supply, and the amount may be higher in the case of premises to which communication pipes are attached than in the case of other premises.'
Similarly there are certain restrictions on imposition of latrine tax and drainage tax under Sections 86 and 86-A of the Act, as quoted hereunder :
'86. Restrictions on the imposition of the latrine tax.--The imposition of the latrine tax shall be subject to the following restrictions, namely :
(a) that the tax shall be imposed only on holdings containing dwelling houses, latrine, urinals or cesspool, and on holdings containing shops or place of business in which, in the opinion of the Commissioners at a meeting, a latrine, urinals or cesspool is required;
(b) that the Commissioners at a meeting may exempt from payment of the tax any jail, reformatory of lunatic asylum in which an establishment is maintained for the cleaning of latrines, urinals and cesspools therein;
(c) that in fixing the rate at which the tax is to be levied regard shall be had to the principle that the total net proceeds of the tax shall not exceed the amount required for cleansing private and public latrines, urinals and cesspools, and for providing, extending or maintaining public latrines and urinals, together with the amount required to meet the proportionate share of the cost or supervision and collection as fixed under Section 69 and the repayment of, and payment of interest on, any loan incurred in connection with this purpose;
(d) that the tax shall not be leviable in any area until the Commissioners have made provision for the cleansing of private latrines, urinals and cesspools within such area, nor shall the tax be leviable for any quarter or portion of a quarter antecedent to the making of such provision;
(e) that the tax on any holding the valuation of which does not exceed twenty-five rupees shall not be more than three rupees per annum, and that the tax on any other holding shall not be imposed at a rate exceeding seven and a half per centum on the annual value of the holding except in the Patna City Municipality in which it shall not exceed ten per centum on such annual value;
(f) that the Commissioners at a meeting may impose surcharge at such rates as may be prescribed by the State Government in respect of holdings containing service latrines, that is latrines, which are not water-flush latrines.'
'86-A. Restrictions on the imposition of a drainage tax.--(1) The imposition of a drainage tax shall be subject to the following restrictions, namely :--
(a) that the tax shall be imposed only on holding within an area for which a drainage or sewerage is in operation; and
(b) that the tax shall not be imposed on land used exclusively for purpose of agriculture or oh any holding consisting only of tanks;
(c) that rate on the annual value of holdings at which the tax may be imposed shall not without the previous sanction of the State Government, exceed seven and-a-half per centum;
(d) that in fixing the rate at which the tax is to be imposed regard shall be had to the principle that the total net proceeds of the tax shall not exceed that amount required for making, extending of maintaining the drainage or sewerage system and in any area in which a sewerage system has been established in execution of a scheme sanctioned under Chapter IX or otherwise the amount required for the cleansing of private and public latrines, urinals and cesspools and public water closets and the provision and maintenance of public latrines, urinals and water closets, together with an amount sufficient to meet the proportionate share of the cost of supervision and collections as fixed under Section 69 and the repayment of, and payment of interest on, any loan incurred in connection with any such drainage or sewerage system; and
(e) that the tax shall not be leviable in any area until a drainage or sewerage system has been established within such area in execution of a scheme sanctioned under Chapter IX, nor shall the tax be leviable for any quarter or portion of a quarter antecedent to the establishment of such system.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commissioners from making any special arrangement consistent with this Act for the extension of a drainage or sewerage system to holdings situated beyond the radius fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting.
(3) The Commissioners may with the sanction of State Government exempt classes of holding and holdings in particular areas from liability to the drainage tax or may assess the said tax on such holdings at rates varying in the prescribed manner.'
Section 98 is also relevant which provides assessment of taxes on the annual value of holdings, as quoted hereunder ;
'98. Annual value of holdings.--(1) The annual value of a holding shall be deemed to be the gross annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let.
(2) If there be on the holding a building or buildings, the actual cost of erection of which can be ascertained or estimated and which is or are not intended for letting or for the residence of the owner himself, the annual value of such holding shall be deemed to be an amount which may be equal to but not exceed, seven and a half per centum of such cost, in addition to a reasonable ground rent for the land comprised in the holding :
Provided that, where the actual cost so ascertained or estimated exceeds one lakh of rupees, the percentage on the annual value to be levied in respect of so much of the cost as in excess of one lakh of rupees shall not exceed one-fourth of the percentage determined by the Commissioners under Section 104.(3) The value of any machinery or furniture which may be on a holding, shall not be taken into consideration in estimating the annual value of such holding under this section.'
'Section 101 provides that 'when it has been determined to impose any tax to be assessed on the annual value of holdings, the Commissioners, after making such inquiries as may be necessary, shall determine the annual value of all holdings within the municipality as hereinafter provided, and shall enter such value in a valuation list.'
'Section 102 speaks of the procedure for preparing the valuation list. It, inter alia, provides that the commissioners may, by notice, require the owners or occupiers of all holding to furnish them with returns of the rent or annual value thereof.
Section 103 provides for penalty for default in furnishing return.
Section 104 deals with the determination of rate of tax on holdings. The material part of the section reads as follows :--
'Subject to the provisions of Clause (iii) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 82 and to the provisions of Sections 84 to 88 inclusive, the commissioners, at a meeting to be held before the close of the year next precedings the year to which any tax which is assessed on the annual value of holdings will apply, shall determine the percentage on the valuation of holdings at which the tax shall be levied, and the percentage so fixed shall remain in force until the order of the Commissioners determining such percentage shall be rescinded, and until the Commissioners at a meeting shall determine some other percentage on the valuation of holdings at which the tax will be levied from the beginning of the next years :Provided..... further that the Commissioners shall not without the previous sanction of the State Government decrease the rate of any tax levied by them.'
Section 105 provides for preparation of assessment list. It lays down that 'as soon as possible after the percentage to which the tax is to be levied for the next year has been determined under the last preceding section, the Commissioners shall cause to be prepared an assessment list' containing particulars enumerated in Clauses (a) to (h) of that section.
[Referred Supreme Court decision, as Shibji Khetshi Thacker v. Commissioners of Dhanbad Municipality and Ors., reported in 1978 BBCJ (SC) 57].
Section 106 while deals with revision and duration of list, which ordinarily to be prepared in the same manner, once in every five years, Section 107 gives the power to the Commissioners to alter or amend the assessment list from time to time in any of the ways, enumerated in Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (i). Under Sub-section (ii) of Section 107 it is obligatory on the part of the Commissioners to give at least one month's notice to any person interested, of any alteration which they propose to make under Clauses (a) to (d) or (dd) of Sub-section (i).
Notice of assessment list mentioned under Section 89 or Section 105, as prepared or revised, is required to be published as per Section 115 of the Act, 1922.
6. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents have no jurisdiction to impose holding tax, latrine tax, water tax, education cess or medical cess. Their main grievance is that the entire exercise for determination of holding tax/municipal tax has not been followed, in absence of methodology of assessment of holding tax and the tax assessed is excessive, unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary. The relevant provisions under Act, 1922 has already been discussed, whereunder, provisions of imposition of tax and certain restrictions, as imposed, have been laid down. How the assessment list is to be prepared, has also been laid down under Section 89. Assessment of tax on the annual value of holdings, as per Section 101, return required for ascertaining annual value in terms of Section 102 etc. have also been discussed. How the tax of holding is to be determined has been prescribed under Section 104. Section 105 provides for preparation of assessment list. Such provisions having been made, the petitioners can not complain, that no procedure or methodology of assessment of holding tax has been laid down under the Act.
7. The valuation of a house for determination of holding tax, whether it should be dependent on fair rent or market rent or actual rent, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time.
8. In the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Devi, reported in AIR 1962 SC 151, the Supreme Court noticed the relevant provisions of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. As per the Rent Control Act of the State, as there was no room to make a contract for a rent at a rate higher than the standard rent, the Court held that the rental value can not be fixed higher than the standard rent under Rent Control Act.
The relevant provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Delhi Rent Control Act fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. MCD, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 167. The Supreme Court held that in normal circumstances, the actual rent, payable by a tenant to the landlord, would afford reliable evidence and what the landlord may reasonably expect to get from hypothetical tenant, unless the rent is inflated or depressed by reasons of extraneous considerations, such as, relationship, expectation of some other benefit etc.
9. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation, as reported in (1995) 4 SCC 96, the Supreme Court considered Section 138(b) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, whereunder it was provided that the annual value of a building be deemed to be the gross annual rent at each such building together with its appurtenances and furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, might reasonable be expected to be let from year to year, less any allowance of 10 per cent for the cost of repair etc.
Under Clause (i) of Section 98 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, the annual value of a holding shall be deemed to be the gross annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let. It is only when the letting value is not discoverable, then Clause (ii) of Section 9 would come into play. In that case whether the cost of construction can be ascertained, the assessing authority will have to take the cost of construction into account for the purpose of proper valuation of the building.
From the aforesaid decision and provisions of law, it will be evident that relevant procedures and methodology to assess the holding tax have been laid down.
10. So far as enhancement or amendment of assessment of holding tax is concerned, whether it can be enhanced or amended from a retrospective date or not, has already been determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Hossiery Mills v. Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, as reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 588. The Court held that in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act, 1922 the enhancement will not have retrospective effect.
11. In the present case, counsel for the Deoghar Municipality brought to the notice of the Court that the Board of Municipality was dissolved under Section 385 of the Act, 1922 and after such dissolution the State Government has appointed and delegated the power to Special Officer under Section 381. The Special Officer is competent to exercise power under Sections 831 and 386 of the Act, 1922 is not in dispute. After dissolution, the then State of Bihar issued a Notification bearing No. 2894/N.B.B. Patna dated 24th August, 1991, whereby, the Special Officer was asked to initiate a proceeding for revisional assessment. An assessor was appointed which was changed from time to time. The Special Officer gave notice to interested persons by dint of general loudspeaker announcement and by bit of drum, as required under the provisions of the Act and informed the people of Deoghar Municipality that revisional assessment will commence. The Assessor, thereafter, took steps for revisional assessment and made inquiry. Demand notices were issued to the respective property owners, copies of which have also been enclosed with some of the writ petitions, whereby, they were informed that on the basis of revisional assessment, the holding tax may be enhanced. In many of the cases, the owners of the holdings made objections under Sections 116 and 118 of the Act, 1922 in prescribed Form 'C', after receipt of demand notice. Having received those objections the Special Officer again issued notices to the respective holding owners, whereby, they were informed to appear on the date, as was fixed for hearing. In many of the cases, the holding owners appeared before the appellate committee, as was constituted by the State Government but many of the holding owners did not prefer to appear before the appellate committee.
Counsel for the Deoghar Municipality submitted that under Sections 116 and 118 of the Act, 1922 the competent authority can review the valuation, as may be fixed by the assessor but none of the holding owners-petitioners of these writ petitions choose to prefer any memo of appeal before the appellate committee. Only after disposal of the matters by the appellate committee, fresh demand notices were issued by the Special Officer, asking the concerned holding owners to deposit the municipal tax, as per the revised holding tax etc.
12. Counsel for the Deoghar Municipality further submitted that the enhancement of holding tax etc. has been made in accordance with Sections 84, 85-C, 86-A and 86-E of the Act, 1922, whereunder, restriction on imposition of holding tax etc. has been laid down. The holding tax etc. has been determined and fixed with liberal approach, taking into consideration the fair rent or the valuation of the house, as per the individual cases and the location of holding(s).
13. It was further submitted that if one or other individual holding owner suppressed or depressed the fair rent or valuation, they can not take advantage of the same at the time of re- determination of holding tax etc.
14. It was further contended that the petitioners of WP (C) No. 1667 of 2003, WP (C) No. 1647 of 2002, WP (C) No. 1678 of 20-03, WP (C) No. 1670 of 2003 and WP (C) No. 1668 of 2003 have straight-way moved before this Court without raising any objection before the appellate committee.
15. So far as WP (C) No. 5654 of 2001 is concerned, counsel for Deoghar Municipality submitted that the Old Holding No. 315/New Holding No. 334, which was existing in the name of petitioner Maharaja Pratap Singh, is now existing in three names with three new holding numbers i.e. Old Holding No. 315/New Holding No. 334. Old Holding No. 315(1)/New Holding No. 335 and Old Holding No. 315(2)/ New Holding No. 336 in the names of Maharaja Pratap Singh, Pratibha Manjuri Devi and Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh. But the writ petitioner has been filed without obtaining Power-of-Attorney from two of the holding owners and without paying the separate Court fees, as per law. It was further submitted that new construction or addition have been made after the previous assessment by the petitioners on of following writ petitions :
1. WP (C) No. 5654 of 2001, Maharaja Pratap Singh v. State and Ors. : Holding No. 334, 335 and 336 (New)/ 315, 315/1 and 315/2(Old).
As per the assessment made in the year 1988-89 holding No. 315-Old building - 4 shops of Tinshed on rent.
As per the Assessment made in the year 1997-98 old building was demolished and new construction has been made in three parts
H. No. 334 - 6 shops on rent - 15000 - valuation
335 - Room-1, shops - 11 - 6000 -valuation
336 - shop - 5 -- 4000 - valuation
2. WP (C) No. 68 of 2002, Sudip Chakrawarti v. State and Ors. : Holding No. 515 (New)/319 (Old) Ward No. 8
As per the assessment made in the year, 1988-89 Holding No. 319 contains with 2 rooms, 2 kitchen, 1 latrine and 1 verandah
As per the assessment as made in the year 1997-98 - Reconstruction over the holding
Holding No. 515 - Double storied Pacca building newly constructed.
2nd storied let out on Rent of Rs. 940/- per month valuation 9400/-
3. WP (C) No. 426 of 2002, Madhu Smita Mishra v. State and Ors. ; Holding No. 176 (New)/92 (Old), Ward No. 8
Holding No. 177 (New)/93 (Old), Ward No. 8
As per assessment made in the year 1988-89
Holding No. 92 (Old) contains with - 2 rooms, 1 jatrine, 1 Bathroom, 1 Kitchen, 1 verandah
Holding No. 93 (Old) contains with - 3 rooms, latrine, 1 bathroom, 1 kitchen, 1 verandah
As per the assessment made in the year, 1997-98
Holding No. 176(New) contains with -two newly constructed rooms have been added in old holding No. 92 (Old) and these two newly constructed rooms let out on rent of Rs. 200 monthly.
Valuation of the holding No. 176 has been determined as Rs. 2000/-
As per the assessment made in the year 1988-89
Holding No. 93 (Old) contains with - 3 rooms, 1 latrine, 1 bathroom, one kitchen, 1 verandah.
As per the assessment made in the year 1997-98
Holding No. 177(New) contains with-newly constructed one room, two kitchens, three verandas in addition to the construction of old holding No. 93, and a part has been let out on rent of Rs. 500/- per month. Valuation of the holding No. 177 (New) has been determined as Rs. 5000/-.
4. WP (C) No. 1307 of 2002, Kamla Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. : Holding No. 474 (New)/346 (Old) Ward No. 9
As per the assessment made in the year, 1988-89
Holding No. 346 (Old) comprised with - 3 rooms of Unshed, 1 room of tiles.
As per the assessment made in the year 1997-98
Holding No. 474 (New) contains with -13 pucca rooms, two verandas, one store room, four latrines and one shop in which a school known as Suwarg School is running - valuation Rs. 7000/-.
16. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners have not given the details of their respective holdings, namely, (a) what is the total area of the premises (b) whether it is in their respective personal use or has been let out (c) if let out, what is the rent they are getting, areawise (d) what is the fair rent of the area where the holding is situated (e) what is the valuation of the house etc.
These are the factors, which have been taken into consideration by the assessor to determine the holding tax of one or other petitioner.
17. In absence of those informations and there being vague pleadings, made in the writ petitions, it is not possible for this Court to determine whether the assessment of holding tax is excessive, unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary or not.
18. There being no merit, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.