1898 (7) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nging to the Plaintiff. It appears that in the year 1893, which was the time at which the last triennial assessment was made, the Municipality assessed both the granary and threshing floor as one holding at lis. 12. Afterwards, in 1894, they were minded to treat the granary and threshing floor as separate holdings, they accordingly assessed the granary at ₹ 12, and assessed the threshing floor separately at 9 annas. The Plaintiff complains of this now assessment, this increase of 9 annas on his former assessment. The matter, as far as money goes, is not of very serious importarlee, for, as the Municipality could clearly have made a fresh assessment in 1896, the amount involved in this litigation is the assessment of 9 annas on the thr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as a proposition of law, has not been disputed, by the Appellant's vakil, and that being so, the question really is, whether the action of the Municipality, in doing what I have stated in 1894, was or was not within the powers conferred upon them by the Statute to which I have referred. 2. The material sections bearing upon this point are secs. 85 and 93. See. 85 authorizes the Municipality to impose a tax upon persons occupying holdings within the Municipality, according to their circumstances, and property within the Municipality--I pause here for a moment. That is just what the Municipality did. In 1893, they enquired into the circumstances of the Plaintiff, and they made an assessment upon the granary and threshing floor as a who .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same property which had been originally included in one and the same assessment. For instance, if the granary and threshing floor in this case had, as a whole, been assessed, say at ₹ 12, and then, later on, the Municipality discovered that, owing to mistake or fraud, the same property as a whole ought to have been assessed at say ₹ 15, that would constitute an enhancement of an assessment. But here what was done was something quite different. Though in the result the Plaintiff has to pay a larger sum, the Municipality did not seek to add anything to the existing assessment of the property assessed as a whole, but they sought to break up the original assessment, and to convert what was originally one assessment on the whole p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X