AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.06.2005 in A.S.No.50 of 1999 passed by the learned I – Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in which the Judgment and decree dated 07.04.1999 in O.S.No.33 of 1992 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, was confirmed.
The suit vide O.S.No.33 of 1992 was filed by the respondent /plaintiff against the appellant herein for recovery of Rs.48,832.44/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant therein preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the same was dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts, defendant in the suit preferred the present second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended the following substantial questions of law.
i) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or otherwise of the assessment of house tax made by the respondent Gram Panchayat.
ii) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in saying that any procedural violation of assessment cannot be gone into by the Court.
iii) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in saying that the court has no power to go into the legality or otherwise of the assessment made by the respondent Gram Panchayat.
iv) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of the decision of the respondent Gram Panchayat.
The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
The brief facts of the case are that the defendant is the owner of the house premises bearing Nos.20-1 to 20-13 (old) corresponding to new 17-108 to17-120 respectively located within the limits of Grampanchayat, Badepally. The house tax was determined and assessed as per the rules and regulations under the Act, 1964 and the details of the house tax to be paid are as follows:
S.No.
H.No.
(Old)
Reassigned H.No.(new)
Tax Payable
From
1-4-88 to
30-3-89
From
1-4-89 to
31-3-90
From
1-4-90 to
31-3-91
1.
20-1
17-108
1,244-16
1,244-16
1,244-16
2.
20-2
17-109
622-08
622-08
622-08
3.
20-3
17-110
155-38
155-38
155-38
4.
20-4
17-111
1,036-80
1,036-80
1,036-80
5.
20-5
17-112
622-08
622-08
622-08
6.
20-6
17-113
1,036-80
1,036-80
1,036-80
7.
20-7
17-114
51-70
51-70
51-70
8.
20-8
17-115
4,147-20
4,147-20
4,147-20
9.
20-9
17-116
3,110-40
3,110-40
3,110-40
10.
20-10
17-117
3,110-40
3,110-40
3,110-40
11.
20-11
17-118
103-68
103-68
103-68
12.
20-12
17-119
518-40
518-40
518-40
13.
20-13
17-120
518-40
518-40
518-40
Total
16,277-48
16,277-48
16,277-48
According to the plaintiff, defendant fell due of payment of tax for three consecutive years from 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1991. When a demand notice was sent to the defendant, he received the same, but for the bills sent to him separately on 24.06.1991, he refused to receive them, as such defendant was alleged to be the willful defaulter and thus plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization.
In the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted the ownership, but contended that the plaintiff with a malafide intention put the house numbers to each door and showed more house numbers and assessed the tax. He further stated that Suit is not maintainable as he had sent the amount through D.D.No.0738047, dt.16.10.1990 for Rs.3,110-40ps, towards full and final payment of house tax for the period from 1986-87 to 1989 and thus requested the Court to dismiss the Suit.
The Executive Officer of the Plaintiff’s office was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked through him. One G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, G.P.A was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked through him. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.47,795.64ps with costs and interest @ 12%perannum till the date of decree and 6% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant had filed an appeal before the first appellate Court, but it was dismissed confirming the judgment of the Trial court.
The defendant in the Suit mainly relied upon Ex.B1 to show that there was no default at all on the part of the defendant in payment of tax and the Trial Court stated that sub-section 6 of sec.60 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1995 which reads as follows:
Any resolution of a Grampanchayat abolishing an existing tax or reducing the rate at which a tax is levied shall not be carried into effect without the previous approval of the Commissioner.
The Executive Officer has no right either to abolish or reduce the tax without the approval of the Commissioner and thus Ex.B1 is not valid and it cannot be relied upon. It is also observed that the entries covered under Exs.A16 and A17 are brought up for the purpose of the suit.
Now it is for the Court to see that whether the concurrent findings of both the Courts are on proper appreciation of facts or not.
The argument of the defendant’s counsel that as he had already paid an amount of Rs.3,111-40/- under Ex.B1, he is not liable to pay the same, as it cannot be accepted. The house numbers are to be allotted as per sub-section (3) and section 126 of Gram Panchayat Act. When PW.1 visited the defendant’s premises he had affixed separate number to each of the doors of that premises, though it is a compact block. which was hither to had only one No.20-108 for the structures and 20-109 for the open area, which was enclosed by the compound wall. Plaintiff had submitted original tax assessment registers for the years 1981-82 and 1986-87. Ex.A16 is the relevant entry at page Nos.952 to 956 in the Revision Register for the year 1981-82 under Ex.A17 and it is the relevant entry from page 687 to 691 in the Revision Register for the year 1986-87. He had also filed certified Xerox copies of the entries, which clearly shows that the Suit premises were given the door Nos.20-1 to 20-13 from Sl.Nos.2597 to 2609. There are as many as 23 columns with all requisite detail running thus Sl.No., Door No. and street, name of the owner, name of the occupier, Assessment, Annual tax, description of the building with measurements, Rent as stated by the occupier, Estimated monthly rent, door No. compared, Gross annual rent, 10% depreciation, Annual value of the building, tax, library cess, water tax, total tax and new assessment number tax when payable, initials of officer. Against each of those numbers, the measurements of building are shown, nature of construction and nature of the selling likewise, estimated monthly rent is also shown against each of them including gross annual rent and finally tax arrived at. Certainly, those entries cannot be constructed as having been brought into existence only for the purpose of the suit as the previous serial number shown as 2596 belonging to Vadla Thirupathaiah with Door No.19-105. That was the last door number of that street or ward, which is the 19th street or ward and thereafter, the suit premises commences in 20th ward or street with first number. Even after the door No.20-13, immediately 20-14 follows with Sl.No.2610 belonging to A.P.S.E.B. and they run upto 2624 with the door No.20-22, then follows the other numbers also against the serial numbers with computation of tax with all details under relevant column.
The Trial Court considered Exs.A16 and A17 in detail, held that the argument of defendant counsel that they are brought up for the purpose of Suit is not tenable and accordingly decreed the Suit. Considering the observation of trial court at length, the appellate court rejected the argument of defendant that Exs.A16 and A17 are fabricated and brought up for the purpose of the case and moreover it was held that whether the assessment of the tax was appropriate or not cannot be challenged before the civil court and it should be challenged before the appropriate forum under the Gram Panchayat Act, as such the legality of the assessment cannot be looked into and also observed the reasons for not considering Ex.B1 and finally confirmed the judgment of the trial court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts.
In the result, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.06.2005 in A.S.No.50 of 1999 passed by the first appellate Court and also the Judgment and dated 07.04.1999 in O.S.No.33 of 1992 passed by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.