U. Bistobor and Others vs The Members of the Village Court

S.K. Dutta, J.—This is a petition under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954. The case of the Petitioners is that they are residents of Lyngkhom Elaka and that the opposite parties are the members of the Village Court of Tyngnger Elaka within the Khasi-Jaintia Hills District. The Petitioners all along lived in the Lyngkhom Elaka and never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Village Court of Tyngnger Elaka. On 22-5-59 the opposite parties submitted a report before the Wahadadar of Sheila Confederacy alleging that the members of the village Durbar of Tynger had sent them a report that the Petitioners who were inhabitants of the Tynger Elaka refused to pay subscription of Rs. 1 per house as directed by the Village Durbar for meeting the expenses for the construction of Mawsynlim bridge. The opposite parties further alleged that on receipt of the report they issued summonses on the Petitioners to appear before them but that the Petitioners refused to do so. The opposite parties considered this to be a contempt of Court and directed the Petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each and further directed to pay a subscription of Rs. 1 per house. The apposite parties moved the Wahadadar for realisation of the above amounts.

On 14-8-59 the Petitioners received a Purwana from the Wahadadar and submitted a written objection that they were not the residents of Tynger Elaka. The matter was tried by the Wahadadar sitting as the Additional Subordinate District Council Court and the Wahadadar by his judgment and order dated 2-6-60 set aside the fine, but directed the Petitioners to pay the subscription. Being aggrieved by this order the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Judge. District Council Court who dismissed it by his order dated 2-3-60. The Petitioners then moved this and Court in Title Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1960 and this was registered as Civil Revision No. 19(H) of 1960. This Court set aside the judgment and order of the Courts below and remanded the case to the Court of appeal directing it to decide the main question whether the Plaintiff who called himself a Court had any jurisdiction to pass an order against a number old undefined persons to pay a subscription of Rs. 1 and if so, under what authority The appeal was heard at length by the learned Judge of the District Council Court who dismissed the Petitioners'' appeal again by his order dated 19-6-61. It is against this order that the present petition is directed.

The Judge of the District Council Court found that the Petitioners were residents of Tynger Elaka. He also found that there was custom that the village Durbar could call for contribution from the public for a public purpose. But it should be remembered that any compulsory levy is a tax and the contribution of Rs. 1 per house which is being demanded in the present case is nothing but tax Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India no tax can be levied or collected recept by authority of law. It is, however, argued before me that there is a customary law for the levy of the aforesaid compulsory contribution. But after the constitution of District Councils, the right to impose certain taxes has been given to such a Council under the provisions laid down in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. Under Part 8(3)(d) of that Schedule taxes for maintenance of schools, dispensaries or roads can be levied by the District Council. Road will include bridges over roads Hence a tax of the aforesaid kind cannot be levied by a village Durbar. in an autonomous district. It can be levied only be the District Council.

In this view of the matter the compulsory levy of Rs. 1 per house under orders of village Durbar is illegal. I therefore, set aside the orders of the Courts below. The petition is allowed The Rule is made absolute.