Union Committee vs Sahay Sah and Others

Agarwala, J.—This is a suit by the karta and members of a joint Hindu family for a declaration that an assessment made on them on 9th June 1935, by the Union Committee of Dalsinghsarai u/s 118-C, Bihar and Orissa Local Self-Government Act, amounting to Rs. 255 was ultra vires the Union Committee and for recovery of the tax paid plus Rs. 10 by way of interest. The Courts below have agreed in decreeing the suit. This appeal is by the Union Committee of Dalsinghsarai challenging the decision of the Courts below.

The question that arises is whether an owner or occupier of buildings within the Union is taxable in respect of each of the buildings which he owns or occupies or whether only one tax is assessable on each individual. Section 118-C of the Act empowers the Union Committee to impose on the owners of buildings, tanks, wells or watercourses, or the occupiers of buildings, within the Union, or in any village therein, such assessment as may be required approximately to meet any deficiency in the financial resources of the Union. Clouse (d) of Sub-section 3 however limits the amount to be assessed on any person to Rs. 5 per mensem. The assessee in this case was a joint family and this family carried on business in five different buildings within the boundaries of the Union. Both before and after 1935, the assessment on the family had been limited to Rs. 5 per mensem.

In 1935, however, the Union assessed the family in respect of each of these buildings with the result that the family has had to pay more than Rs. 5 per mensem. It is not disputed, of course, that a joint Hindu family ''is a person'' within the meaning of Clause (d) of Sub-section 3. The learned advocate for the Union Committee in this Court has maintained the argument addressed to the Courts below that the Committee is entitled to levy tax in respect of each building owned or occupied by persons within the Union.

Acceptance of that contention will be to ignore altogether the provisions of Clause (d) or Sub-section 3. Had the Legislature intended that any one person within the ambit of the Union Committee should be liable to pay more than Rs. 5 per mensem, Clause (d) would have read very differently and probably would have been worded as follows: "The amount to be assessed in respect of any building, tank, well or water-course shall not exceed Rs. 5 per mensem." Clause (d) however as it stands, does not refer to buildings, tanks, wells or water-courses but to persona and in unequivocal language limits the assessment on any one person to Rs. 5 per mensem. I therefore agree with the Courts below that the assessment in the present case, in so far as it offends against the provisions of Clause (d); was ultra vires the Union Committee, and would therefore reduce the assessment to Rs. 5 per mensem.

With regard to the claim for recovery of the amount already paid, the learned advocate for the respondents concedes that the decree of the Court must be modified to this extent, that his clients are hot entitled to the refund of the whole of Rs. 255 paid but only to so much of it as it is in excess of what was within the power of the Union Committee to levy, namely Rs. 60 per annum. He concedes therefore that the appellant is entitled to retain Rs. 60 out of Rs. 255 paid. The result is that the decree of the Court below will be modified to this extent, that it will be declared that the assessment on the plaintiffs in excess of Rs. 5 per mensem is ultra vires and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs. 195 out of the money which they claimed. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.