1990 (11) TMI 407 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the storage tanks of petroleum products are "land" or "buildings" u/s 3(r) and 3(s) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2. Whether the storage tanks are exigible to property tax under the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition of "Land" and "Building" u/s 3(r) and 3(s)
The Supreme Court examined whether the storage tanks qualify as "land" or "buildings" u/s 3(r) and 3(s) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Section 3(r) defines land to include "land which is being built upon or is built upon or covered with water, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." Section 3(s) defines 'building' to include "a house, out-house stable, shed, hut and every other such structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud metal or any other material whatever."

Issue 2: Exigibility to Property Tax
The Court considered the applicability of property tax on the storage tanks. The tanks were found to be resting on their own weight without bolts and nuts, but they were permanently erected and not shifted from place to place. The Court emphasized that "permanency is the test" and concluded that the tanks are structures or things attached to the land within the definitions provided in Sections 3(s) and 3(r) of the Act.

Legal Analysis:
The Court referred to various definitions and judicial interpretations of "building" and "structure" from authoritative dictionaries and previous case law. It was noted that "a tank to be a building must be a structure designed for either habitation or shelter for human habitation or storage of inanimate objects." The Court also considered the legislative purpose of the Act, emphasizing that the law should adapt to contemporary technological and societal changes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the petroleum storage tanks are structures or things attached to the land and are therefore exigible to property tax under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The judgment of the High Court was reversed, and the decision of the Court of Small Causes was affirmed. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.