Skip to content


Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar Vs. Municipal Board and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 257 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)223
AppellantRoshan Lal Pawan Kumar
RespondentMunicipal Board and anr.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredKanraj v. State of Raj.
Excerpt:
.....no right to recover tax from inhabitants;the municipality was not properly constituted vide notification dated 24-4-1973 as the mandatory provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the rajasthan municipalities act have not been complied with, and, therefore, it has no right to recover the tax from the inhabitants of the area.;appeal allowed. - - it is essential for a properly constituted municipality to corns into existence, that its limits must be clearly defined by or under competent authority and such limits must be duly published in accordance with law and in the absence of specifications of its limits, it would not be possible, in law, to levy and recover the taxes, as the specification of the boundaries in the notifications under sections 4 and 6 is sine qua non for the constitution of a.....surendra nath bhargava, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case is fully covered by division bench judgment in kanraj v. state of raj. reported in 1979 wln 127. the learned counsel for respondents has not been able to show any distinction as to why the observations made in this case are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. it is essential for a properly constituted municipality to corns into existence, that its limits must be clearly defined by or under competent authority and such limits must be duly published in accordance with law and in the absence of specifications of its limits, it would not be possible, in law, to levy and recover the taxes, as the specification of the boundaries in the.....
Judgment:

Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case is fully covered by Division Bench judgment in Kanraj v. State of Raj. reported in 1979 WLN 127. The learned counsel for respondents has not been able to show any distinction as to why the observations made in this case are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is essential for a properly constituted Municipality to corns into existence, that its limits must be clearly defined by or under competent authority and such limits must be duly published in accordance with law and in the absence of specifications of its limits, it would not be possible, in law, to levy and recover the taxes, as the specification of the boundaries in the notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 is sine qua non for the constitution of a valid Municipality. I am of the view that the Municipality was not properly constituted vide notification dated 24-4-1973 as the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act have not been complied with, and, therefore, it has no right to recover the tax from the inhabitants of the area.

2. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Judgments of the two courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs suit is decreed. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //