http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: CHHAGAN LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL  CORPORATION,  INDORE

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1977

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1555            1977 SCR  (2) 871  1977 SCC  (2) 409  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC2323  (2,11,12)  RF         1988 SC 812  (11,13,18,27,29)

ACT:             M.P.   Municipal  Corporation  Act,   1956--House    Tax         levied    under   the  Madhya  Bharat  Municipalities   Act,         1954--On  appeal corporation directed to decide the  assess-         ment afresh--Whether tax is payable from the date of  origi-         nal assessment or after remand.

HEADNOTE:             Under  the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act,  1954,  the         Municipal  Corporation determined the house lax  payable  by         the appellant in respect of his house with effect from April         1,  1954.  On appeal by the appellant regarding  assessment,         the  Additional  District  Judge remanded the  case  to  the         Corporation  for a fresh decision after due enquiry.   Ulti-         mately,  by a notice dated October 12, 1965 issued under  s.         146  of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation  Act,  1956         (as  amended in 1961) the Corporation revised the amount  of         tax payable but maintained the date of liability for payment         of  tax as April 1, 1954.  On appeal by the  appellant,  the         additional District Judge held that the tax was payable with         effect  from  April 1, 1965 and not April 1,  1954  for  the         reason that the tax was finally fixed after the notice dated         October 12, 1965.  The Revision Petition of the  Corporation         was  allowed by the High Court holding that tax was  payable         from April 1, 1954 because the proceedings were started even         before the 1956-Act came into force.             In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that  (1         )  as the fresh notice was issued under s. 146 of the  1956-         Act  on  October 12, 1965 after remand of the  case  by  the         District Judge, house lax could be imposed only with  effect         from April 1, 1965 and not retrospectively and (2) the order         of  the  District Judge being final under s. 149(2)  of  the         1956-Act  the  High Court had no jurisdiction  to  interfere         with that order and in any event the High Court exceeded its         power under s. 115, C.P.C.         Dismissing the appeal.             HELD:  The  proceeding relating to the house tax  was  a         continuous proceeding relating to the tax payable from April

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       1,  1954  and  the notice issued by  the  Corporation  after         remand  by  the District Judge did not amount to  notice  of         fresh assessment or re-assessment. [874 E-F]             1.  There is no force in the contention .that under  the         1956-Act  the municipality had no power to pursue  the  pro-         ceedings  regarding the levy of tax for an  earlier  period.         The  notice issued by the Corporation to the appellant  made         it  clear  that the Commissioner was proceeding to  fix  the         value in pursuance of the remand.  The appellant’s plea that         the  Commissioner was not authorised to determine the  value         and  impose the tax for any period before the date of  issue         of the notice ignores the fact that the valuation and deter-         mination  of tax from 1954 was pending and  the  proceedings         related  to that period.  Section 3(3) of the 1956-Act  pro-         vides  that  all rates, taxes and sums of money due  to  the         Municipalities  when this Act was made applicable  shall  be         deemed  to be due to the Corporation and sub-s. (4.)  states         that all suits and other legal proceedings instituted by  or         against  a Municipality may be continued by or  against  the         Corporation.   The  proceedings  in the  instant  case  were         originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act,         1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the house tax         were  not concluded when under the new Act  the  Corporation         became entitled to pursue the proceedings. [874F-C, 875A-D]             2. (a) Under s. 115, C.P.C. the High Court has power  to         revise  the order passed by Courts subordinate to  it.   The         District Court being subordinate to         872         the High Court, is liable to the revisional jurisdiction  of         the High Court. Moreover, the question of want of  jurisdic-         tion of the High Court was not raised before that Court  and         cannot  be allowed to be raised in this Court for the  first         time. [875 F-G]              (b) The  principles governing interference by the  High         Court  trader  s. 115, C.I.C. have been laid  down  by  this         Court  in  a catena of decisions, the last of which  is  The         Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria &         Anr. (A.I.R.  1976 S.C. 2621). [875H, 876A-B]              Baldevdas  Shivlal  & Anr.  v.  Filmistan  Distributors         (India)  (P)  Ltd. & Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435,  M/s.  D.L.F.         Housing  and  Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup  Singh  and         Ors.  A.I.R.  1971 S.C. 2324, The Managing,  Director  (MIG)         Hindustan  Aeronautics  Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad  and  Ant.         v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores)  Hindu-         stan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1973 S.C.         76 and  The Municipal Corporation of Delhi  v. Suresh  Chan-         dra Jaipuria and Anr. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621 referred to.

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1888/68.              Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  10-1-1968  of the Madhya Pradesh High  Court  (Indore         Bench) in Civil Revision No. 76/67.         D.V. Patel and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.              V.P.  Raman,  Addl. Sol. Genl., Y.S. Chitale  and  D.N.         Mishra for the Respondent.         The judgment of the Court was delivered by         KAILASAM,  J. This .appeal is by special leave  against  the         judgment  and order of the High; Court of  Madhya.  Pradesh,         Bench  at Indore revising the order of the  Additional  Dis-         trict Judge and holding that the appellant is liable to  pay         tax  from April .1, 1954 and not from April 1, 1965 only  as         held by the District Judge.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

            The  appellant  is  the owner of a factory  at  No.  1,         Shivaji  Nagar, Indore.  On January 8, 1954. the  rental  of         the factory was assessed at Rs.564 per month and the  house-         tax payable at Rs.475/14/- with effect from April 1, 1951.             The  dispute  is whether tax is payable  from  April  1,         1954.   By an order dated March 20, 1956 the  house-tax  was         determined at Rs. 891/1/- per annum by the Municipal  Corpo-         ration  with effect from April 1, 1954.  Against  the   said         assessment   the  appellant preferred an appeal  before  the         Municipal  Appeal Committee, Indore. The.  Appeal  Committee         allowed the appeal and remanded the case for deciding it  on         merits  after giving a hearing to the appellant.  After  re-         mand,  the  Municipal Corporation again inquired  into   the         matter and determined the rental value at Rs.940/- per month         and  reduced  the  tax to Rs.793/2/- per year  by  an  order         dated   11th February 1957, as payable from April  1,  1954.         The  appellant objected to the assessment and gave notice of         objection under section 147(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Munici-         pal .Corporation Act, 1.956, but the objection was summarily         rejected  by  the  Municipal  Commissioner.   The  appellant         preferred an  appeal  being  Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41  of         1957  to  the 1st Additional District Judge, Indore.  By  an         order dated March 10, 1960, the Additional  District  Judge         873         allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision afresh         after  proper inquiry.  On remand, a notice  dated  February         11,  1963, was issued to the appellant under section  144(1)         of the’ Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,’ 1956,  as         amended  by Act 13 of 1961 calling upon him to. furnish  the         required information.  The COrporation also, issued  another         notice  to  the appellant on May  7,   1964,  informing  the         appellant  that the Junior Overseer had submitted  a  report         that considerable changes have been effected-in the  factory         and calling upon him to. submit a detailed plan.  The appel-         lant  replied asking for details.  Subsequently, the  appel-         lant   received   a  notice dated October  12,  1965,  under         section  146 of  the  Madhya Pradesh  Municipal  Corporation         Act whereby he was informed that the annual valuation of the         property  was  assessed at Rs.10,870.20  and  Rs.764.18  was         fixed  as the annual property tax with effect from April  1,         1954.  He was also informed that if he had any objection  he         could  file  his objections under section 147(1)  within  30         days  from the receipt of the said notice.   The  ’appellant         filed his objections on November 11, 1965.  The Commissioner         rejected the objections by his order dated May 26, 1966, and         confirmed  the valuation of the property and tax imposed  by         it  on October 12, 1965.  The appellant was informed by  the         Corporation  by  its letter dated June 1,  1966,  that’  the         amount  of Rs.764.18 as tax has been fixed with effect  from         April  1, 1954, on the basis of the valuation of the  annual         income of Rs.10,870.20.             Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner the appellant         filed  Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 1966 before  the         2nd  Additional District Judge, Indore.   The learned  Judge         by  his  order dated December 21, 1966, partly  allowed  the         appeal  and held that the appellant would be liable  to  pay         the  property  tax of Rs.764.18 with effect  from  April  1,         1965,  only,  and not from April 1, 1954.    The  respondent         Municipality then filed a Revision Petition before the  High         Court  and  the High Court by its order  dated  January  10,         1968, in Civil Revision No. 76 of 1967 allowed the  Revision         Petition  and held that levy of the house-tax  at  Rs.764.18         would be payable from April, 1, 1954 itself.             Against the order of the High Court the appellant  filed         a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

       grant  of a special leave by this Court on  August  23,1968,         this appeal has come up before us for final hearing.             The learned counsel for the appellant raised two conten-         tions.  He submitted that as a fresh notice was issued under         section  144 of the amended Act on October 12, 1965  no  tax         could be  imposed with retrospective effect and the order of         the High Court directing payment of tax from April 1,  1954,         is  against law.   It was next contended that the  decision_         of  the 2nd Additional District Judge is final and the  High         Court  had  no jurisdiction to interfere with it.    In  any         event  it had exceeded its powers under section 115  of  the         Civil Procedure Code.         874             From  the  facts set out it will be  apparent  that  the         order  fixing  the tax at Rs.891/1/- per annum  with  effect         from  April  1, 1954   was made on March  20,  1956.    That         order was challenged before various forums.   The  Municipal         Appeal Committee had first allowed   an appeal preferred  by         the  appellant  and  remanded the case  to    the  Municipal         Corporation.    After remand the Municipal  Corporation  re-         duced the tax to Rs.793/2/- by its order dated February  11,         1957. But again the assessment was objected to under section         147(1)  of  the Madhya Pradesh  Municipal  Corporation  Act.         The  Municipal  Commissioner dismissed  the  objections  and         thereupon there Was   an appeal to. the Additional  District         Judge  who  allowed the appeal and remanded the  matter  for         fresh disposal on March 10, 1960.   After remand the  Corpo-         ration  reduced the tax  further and fixed it  at  Rs.764.18         with  effect from April 1, 1954 by its order  dated  October         12, 1965.  The appellant filed objections and the objections         were  rejected by the Commissioner by  its order  dated  May         26,   1966. Against the order fixing the tax at  Rs.  764.18         the appellant filed an appeal to the 2nd Additional District         Judge, Indore, who by his order dated December 21, 1966 held         that the property tax has to be paid only from April 1, 1965         and  not from  April 1, 1954.  That order was challenged  by         the  Municipality  before the High Court which  allowed  the         Civil Revision and held that the house-tax at Rs. 764.18  is         payable from April 1, 1954.   It will be thus seen that  the         proceeding  related to the tax payable from April  1,  1954.         The point that is taken by the learned counsel is that after         the remand by the learned District Judge by his order  dated         March 10, 1960, the proceedings started by the  Municipality         by its notice, dated October 12, 1965 were under section 146         of  the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and as  the         new  Act  was  not retrospective in its effect  the  tax  is         payable  only  from  April 1, 1965.   This  plea  cannot  be         accepted  as from the narration of the facts it can be  seen         that  it was a   continuous proceeding relating to  the  tax         payable from April 1, 1954, and there is no substance in the         plea that the notice amounted to notice of fresh  assessment         or  re-assessment.  Equally untenable is his plea  that  the         notice given by the Municipality on October 12, 1965  cannot         have  the effect of levying tax for any period earlier  than         April, 1965.  The notice issued by the Municipal Corporation         bearing  No. 18000 dated February 11, 1963, runs as  follows         :-                             "Under  section  144(1)  of  the  Madhya                       Pradesh  Municipal  Corporation Act,  you  are                       hereby   informed   the necessary  particulars                       in the proforma given below, together with the                       detailed plan of the building of the abovemen-                       tioned factory may please be furnished  within                       7 days from   the receipt of this letter;  for                       the  purpose of assessment.   As the case  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

                     been remanded by the court, it is necessary to                       make assessment again."             The  notice itself specifically states that the  assess-         ment  was  to  be made again in pursuance of  the  order  of         remand. The notice No. 10195 dated October 12, 1965 is under         section  146  of the  Municipal Act and it  stated  that  on         remand of the matter from the District Court         875         regarding  the  assessment of the  property.  No.1,  Shivaji         Nagar,   the annual tax has been assessed at Rs. 764.18  and         called upon   the appellant to file any objections if he has         within 30 days from the receipt of the notice under  section         147(1)  of the Act.   The notice itself makes it clear  that         the Commissioner was proceeding to fix  the value in  pursu-         ance  of the remand and called upon him to file  his  objec-         tions under  section 147.  The plea of the  learned  counsel         for the appellant is that the Commissioner is not authorised         to  determine  the  value and impose a tax  for  any  period         before the date of   issue of the notice.   This  contention         ignores the fact that the valuation and determination of the         tax  from  the  year 1954 was pending  and  the  proceedings         related  to. that period.   Section 3 of the M.P.  Municipal         Corporation Act, 1956, Act 23 of 1956, amongst other  things         provides  under sub-section (3) that "All rates,  taxes  and         sums  of money due to the Municipalities of such  city  when         this Act is made applicable shall be deemed to be due to the         Corporation,"  and  under subsection (4) of section  3  "All         suits or other Legal proceedings, civil or criminal,  insti-         tuted  by  or against the Municipality of such city  may  be         continued by or against the Corporation."   The  proceedings         were originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities         Act,   1954  and the proceedings regarding the levy  of  the         house-tax  were  not concluded when under the  new  Act  the         Corporation  became entitled to pursue the proceedings.   We         do  not see any basis for the contention that under the  new         Act the Municipality had no power to pursue the  proceedings         regarding  the  levy of the tax for an earlier  period.   We         therefore  reject the first contention as being without  any         substance.             The  second  contention is based on section 149  of  the         Madhya  Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.    It  pro-         vides  that  any appeal shall lie from the decision  of  the         Municipal  Commissioner  to  the District  Court,  when  any         dispute  arises as to the liability of any land or  building         to  assessment.   Sub-section (1) of section   149  provides         that the decision of the District Court shall be final.   It         was  submitted that the decision of the District  Court  was         therefore   final  and that the High Court was in  error  in         entertaining  a  Revision Petition.   This  plea  cannot  be         accepted for, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure  Code         the  High Court has got a power to. revise the order  passed         by  courts subordinate to it.   It cannot be  disputed  that         the  District Court is a subordinate court and is liable  to         the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.   That leaves         us  with the last contention of the appellant that the  High         Court acted beyond its power as a court of revision.    This         point will have to be summarily dismissed as the question of         want of jurisdiction of the High Court was not raised before         the High Court and therefore cannot be allowed to be  raised         in this Court for the first time.   The learned counsel  for         the appellant pleaded that the question involves total  lack         of  powers  of the   High Court and this Court  should  hold         that  the order of the High Court is  without  jurisdiction.         This Court has laid down the principles governing  interfer-         ence  under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is  Bal-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

       devdas Shivlal & Anr. v. Filmistan Distributors (India)  (P)         Ltd. &  Ors.,, (1) M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction  Co.         (P) Ltd. v.         (1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435.         8--206SCI/77         876         Sarup  singh  and Ors.,(1) and The Managing  Director  (MIG)         Hindustan  Aeronautics  Ltd. Balanagar  Hyderabad  and  Anr.         v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores)  Hindu-         stan  Aeronautics  Ltd. Balangar Hyderabad.(2)  These  cases         have  been referred to in the recent decision of this  Court         in  The  Municipal Corporation of Delhi  v.  Suresh  Chandra         Jaipuria  and  Anr..(3)  and the attention  of  the  learned         Judges  of the High Court was drawn to the law  declared  by         this Court.   We consider it unnecessary to discuss the  law         on  the  subject over again as this appeal is liable  to  be         dismissed on the ground that the point was not taken  before         the High Court and the discretion of this Court to interfere         or not is beyond question.             In the result we find that there is no substance in this         appeal and dismiss the same with costs.         P.B.R..                                         Appeal  dis-         missed.          (1) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2324.          (2) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 76.          (3) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2621.         877