Skip to content


Sri Vanamamalai Mutt, Represented by Its Head His Holiness the Jeer Vs. the Panchayat Rajakkalamangalam, Represented by Its President, Rajakhalamangalam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMunicipal Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1974)2MLJ323
AppellantSri Vanamamalai Mutt, Represented by Its Head His Holiness the Jeer
RespondentThe Panchayat Rajakkalamangalam, Represented by Its President, Rajakhalamangalam and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....have been raised for the specific purpose of laying roads in the village. section 119 authorises a village panchayat to levy such taxes. sub-section (3) says that, subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as the case may be, the panchayat may levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose. this power is, of course, subject to rules to be made and with the sanction of the inspector. while granting such sanction, the inspector may also prescribe restrictions and conditions. by reason of the rule-making power, rules have been made by g.o. ms. no. 184, l.a. dated 1st january, 1962. rule 1 (b) mentions the specific purposes for which the taxes can be levied. one of them is the construction of a road or bridge or culvert in the village.2. the two points urged for the.....
Judgment:

K. Veeraswami, C. J.

1. On the ground of excessive delegation, Section 119 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is attacked. There are two taxes designated as Agricultural Development Tax and Village Development Tax, with which we are concerned. Both the taxes have been raised for the specific purpose of laying roads in the village. Section 119 authorises a village Panchayat to levy such taxes. Sub-section (3) says that, subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as the case may be, the Panchayat may levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose. This power is, of course, subject to rules to be made and with the sanction of the Inspector. While granting such sanction, the Inspector may also prescribe restrictions and conditions. By reason of the rule-making power, rules have been made by G.O. Ms. No. 184, L.A. dated 1st January, 1962. Rule 1 (b) mentions the specific purposes for which the taxes can be levied. One of them is the construction of a road or bridge or culvert in the village.

2. The two points urged for the appellant are: (1) that the fixation of rates has been left to the Panchayat which amounted to excessive delegation; and (2) that the tax is not related to agricultural purposes. As to the second point, there is no argument addressed to us that the tax is in the nature of fee and, that being so, the contention has no merit. The tax raised may be devoted to any purpose of a public character.

3. As to the first contention, under the District Municipalities Act and also the City Corporation Act, though the Legislature has authorised the levy of property tax, the rate of tax has been left to the Municipal Council. No doubt, the Legislature may choose to impose an upper limit for rates. But that is not, in our opinion, a condition precedent for the validity of the power of the Municipal Council or Panchayat to fix the rate. The rate of tax fixed in these cases is also not excessive and it appears to be reasonable.

4. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100 in each case.


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