9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "common compound" in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. 2. Applicability of water-tax to buildings within a certain radius from a water stand pipe. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Maintainability of a Special Appeal against the decision of a single judge. 5. Applicability of water-tax to non-residential buildings under the relevant government notification. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of "Common Compound": The primary issue was the interpretation of the term "common compound" as used in Section 129, Explanation (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. The court examined whether this term would cover all buildings situated within a land where the occupants have a common right of usage. The court concluded that "common compound" has a broader meaning than "compound" as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. It includes land used in common by the occupants of buildings situated in such land, regardless of whether it is appurtenant to any one building. The court held that all buildings within such a common compound fall within the permissible 600 feet radius from the water stand pipe for the purpose of water-tax. 2. Applicability of Water-Tax: The court examined whether the water-tax could be imposed on buildings within a 600 feet radius from the nearest water stand pipe as per the notification of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 18th September, 1958. The court found that the notification allowed the imposition of water-tax on lands and buildings within this radius, without restricting it to residential buildings. Thus, the imposition of water-tax on both residential and non-residential buildings of the respondent company was justified. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The court addressed whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the appellate authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the High Court's jurisdiction was rightly invoked as the appellate authority had committed a patent error of law by ignoring the second part of Explanation (a) to Section 129, which defines "building" to include "common compound." This error warranted correction by the High Court. 4. Maintainability of Special Appeal: The issue of whether a Special Appeal was maintainable against the decision of the single judge was considered. The court decided not to entertain this point, as the appeal had been pending since 1976 and addressing this issue would be impractical. The court noted that even if the Special Appeal was not maintainable, the respondent could have challenged the single judge's decision directly under Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. Applicability of Water-Tax to Non-Residential Buildings: The court examined whether the factory premises of the respondent company could be taxed under the relevant notification. The court found that the notification dated 12th September, 1958, allowed the imposition of water-tax on all lands and buildings within a 600 feet radius from the nearest water stand pipe, including non-residential buildings. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the notification applied only to residential buildings. Final Order: The court set aside the order of the Division Bench and confirmed the order of the single judge, allowing the writ petition of the appellant Municipality. The court held that the levy of water-tax on both residential and non-residential buildings of the respondent company was justified. Consequently, there was no question of refunding any amount collected by the appellant towards the water-tax levy. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
