Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1942 (8) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary of State for a declaration to that effect; On January 22, 1934, they gave a notice, which was intended to comply with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and which set out in detail the plaintiffs' case. In paragraph 22 it alleged that the order of the Collector fixing the assessment deserves to be declared a nullity, and the plaintiffs therefore bring the suit for this declaration and also for the refund of any amount that the Collector will levy from the plaintiffs. Then in paragraph 23 it is stated as follows : At present the amount is not ascertained, but the Collector had called upon the 1st plaintiff, by the talati of Sheher Kotda, to pay ₹ 6,936 as assessment and ₹ 433-8-0 local fund; making total of ͅ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice is given, the notice is rendered bad, because it refers to a possible further claim which may arise before a suit can be brought. One must construe the section with some regard to common sense, and to the object with which it appears to have been passed. That object, as has been pointed out in a good many cases, is to give to the public officer concerned notice of the claim which is going to be made against him, and to give him reasonable time in which to consider his reactions. In construing the section, one must remember that the suit cannot be brought for two months after the date of the notice. The cause of action, which is to be stated in the notice, is the bundle of facts which go to make up the right in respect of which the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he claim for refund was not an act of the Collector; it was an act voluntarily performed by the plaintiffs. No doubt, they paid under protest, and only because of the act of the Collector alleged to be illegal; but the actual payment, which founds the claim for refund, was not an act done by the Collector, and no notice in' respect of that was required to be given. In my opinion, the notice in this case sufficiently complied with Section 80, since it gave notice of the acts which the Collector was alleged to have done in his official capacity, of which the plaintiffs complained, and from: which the cause of action resulted. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l these survey numbers had been built over to a substantial extent at that date. It is also clear from exhibit 34 that there was no separate assessment in respect of the part built over, and the part not built over, and, to my mind, the only presumption which we can draw from exhibit 34 is that this land was assessed as non-agricultural land used for building purposes, that is to say, that it fell within Section 48(b) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Section 48 divides land to be assessed into three classes : (a) land used for the purpose of agriculture, (b) land used for the purpose of building, and (c) land used for a purpose other than agriculture or building. That was the position in 1922, when the manager of the Ginning Factory made an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any buildings within three years, and, therefore, the permission lapsed, as the learned Judge has held. But in 1932 they did erect a new building, and thereupon the Collector levied assessment at the standard rate of assessment under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and Rule 82 of the rules issued under that Act. The question is whether that assessment is legal. Section 65 and Rule 82 provide for altered assessment being levied where the land is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, and, as I have already pointed out, this land had been used and assessed at all material times for non-agricultural purposes. If the user of the land came under Section 48 (c), then I think the Collector could have levied increased .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates