ivil Appeal No 480 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 10785 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 1235 of 1984
DN Mukherjee and Ran jan Mukherjee for the Appellant
SS Khanduja Yashpal Dingra and Baldev Kishan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court w as delivered by 146 K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
This appeal by leave from a judgment of the MP High Court concerns the scope of Sec tion 415 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act 1956  the Act  for short
The circumstances can be shortly stated
Within the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation limits there is a Mandi  established under the MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1973  Adhiniyam  covering an area of 55 acres
It is enclosed by high boundary wall and is under the con trol and jurisdiction of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samithi or otherwise called the Market Committee
Under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam the market Committee is a body corporate with power to provide facilities for regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and establishment of proper administration of the market
Section 73 of the Adhiniyam provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force every market commit tee shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local author ity 
Inside the Mandi the market committee appears to have constructed office buildings shop complexes godowns market yards shades and other buildings
The Jabalpur Municipal Corporation assessed property tax in respect of the buildings within the Mandi area and also demanded safai tax water tax electricity charges development charges for the years 1980 81 to 198384
The market committee has re fused to pay the same and claimed that the corporation has no jurisdiction to levy and collect such taxes or charges
The Corporation did not agree with that claim and initiated proceedings to recover the dues
Challenging the action taken the Market Committee moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the recovery proceedings
The High Court following an earlier decision arising under Section 334 of the MP Municipalities Act 1961 allowed the petition and quashed recovery proceedings
The High Court also directed the Corporation to take steps in accordance with Section 4 15 of the Act for resolving the dispute with the market committee
The order of the High Court reads as follows Section 415 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act 1956 provides for adjudication of disputes between the Corpora tion and local authorities by the State Government on a reference made to it for this purpose
The corresponding provision in the MP Municipalities Act 1961 is Section 334
In a similar situation where recovery proceedings had been commenced against a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti like 147 the petitioner by the Municipal Council Gadarwara a Division Bench in Misc
Petition No 994 of 1981 Jawahar Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Gadarwara and another decided on 561983 quashed the recovery preceedings and directed the Municipal Council to take steps under section 334 of the MP Municipalities Act 1961 for adjudication of the dis pute between itself and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Since section 415 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act 1956 is in pari materia with section 334 of the MP Municipalities Act 1961 that decision has to be followed
Consequently this petition is allowed
The pending recovery proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and the respondent Municipal Corporation Jabalpur is directed to take steps in accordance with section 4 15 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act 1956 for resolving its dispute with the petitioner
The parties shall bear their own costs
 In this appeal the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur has challenged the validity of the above order
Before us the core of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Market Committee is not a local authority either under the Municipal Corporation Act or under the MP General Clauses Act 1957
It has been declared to be a local authority only for purposes of the Adhiniyam and that declaration could not be relevant for the purpose of Section 415 of the Act
The Market Committee unless it falls within the definition of local authority  under the MP General Clauses Act 1957 the dispute under Section 415 of the Act could not be referred to the Govern ment
Counsel also referred to us the various provisions of the Act which confer power on the Corporation to levy and collect taxes and charges
Indisputably the respondent is not a local authority as defined under MP General Clauses Act 1957
Section 220 of the said Act defines local authority  to mean a munici pal corporation municipality local board Janapad Sabha village panchayat or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with the control of manage ment of a municipal or local fund
 Counsel for the respond ent however strongly relied upon Section 73 of the Adhi niyam which provides that the Market Committee shall be deemed to be a local 148 authority notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment
It seems to us that it is not necessary to express any opinion on this controversy and even if we assume in favour of the respondent that it is a local authority without deciding the recovery proceedings could not have been quashed by the High Court
And the Corporation could not have been directed to refer the dispute to the Government under Section 415 of the Act
Section 4 15 of the Act reads Disputes between Corporation and local authorities If any dispute arises between the Corporation and any local authority as regards anything done or to be done under this Act it shall be referred to the Government for decision and such decision may include an order as to costs of any en quiry ordered by the Government and shall be final
Provided that it shall be competent to the Corpora tion and the local authority to agree in writing that any such dispute shall instead of being referred to the Govern ment for decision be referred to the decision of an arbi trator or arbitrators appointed under the  or to a civil court under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
 The Section is clear and provides that the disputes arising between the Corporation and local authority as regards anything done or to be done under the Act shall be referred to the Government for decision
It shall be compe tent also to the Corporation and local authority to agree in writing that any such dispute shall instead of being re ferred to the Government be referred to the decision of an arbitrator under the or to a civil court under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The assess ment of tax or demand of any fees by the Corporation under the provisions of the Act could fall within the term any thing done or intended to be done under the Act as provided under Section 415
Even refusal of the Corporation to con sider the objections against assessment and recovery of tax or fees could also be considered as anything done or in tended to be done under the Act
The question however is whether it would be obligatory for the Corporation in the event of the local authority refusing to pay taxes or fees to approach the Government or refer the dispute 149 to the Government for decision The answer to the question should be in the negative
Section 4 15 does not provide that the Corporation has to move the Government when the local authority has refused to pay the tax or fees levied and demanded
There are also no rules framed by the Govern ment regulating the exercise of power under the Section and at any rate our attention has been drawn to no statutory rules framed under the section
The High Court however has followed its earlier deci sion arising under Section 334 of the Municipalities Act
There the dispute arose between the Gadarwara Municipal Council and Mandi Samiti Gadarwara as to the authority of the former to collect takes and charges from the latter
The Mandi Samithi was an authority constituted like the present Market Committee under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam and func tioning within the Municipal limits
It challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the Municipal Council and moved the High Court for appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court quashed the recovery proceedings and directed the Municipal Council to approach the Government under Section 334 of the Municipalities Act to resolve the dispute
This decision we think overlooks the plain terms of Section 334 and even otherwise it is not relevant for operation of Section 415 of the Act
Section 334 of the MP Municipality Act 1961 reads Dispute between Council and other local body 1 In the event of any dispute arising between a Council and any other local authority established under any State Act on a matter in which they are jointly interested such dispute shall be referred to the State Government whose decision shall be final
 Under this Section the State Government has framed rules called Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Regulation of Rela tions between Councils and other local Authorities Rules 197 1
Rules 2 and 3 are in these terms Rule 2
Whenever a Council and any other authority are jointly interested in any matter such matter shall be settled amicably between them and where they do not come to a mutual agreement the matter shall be referred to the Collector
150 Rule 3
The Collector shall then arrange a joint meeting of the Council and Local Authority and manage to bring about an amicable settlement
 The rules thus provide that the dispute in which the Council and local authority are jointly interested in any matter but not possible to settle the dispute mutually the matter shall be referred to the Collector
The Collector shall try to bring about an amicable settlement by arranging a joint meeting of both the authorities
Rules 4 and 5 are also relevant in this context and may be read Rule 4
If the talk for amicable settlement fails the Collector shah persuade the Council and the local authority to agree in writing to refer the matter to an arbitrator or arbitrators appointed under the and if they agree the matter shall be referred to such arbitrator or arbitrators as the case may be
Rule 5
When the Council and local authority do not agree to refer the matter to arbitration the Collector shall refer the matter to the State Government with his comments on it and the decision of the State Government shall be final
 Under Rule 5 it would be for the Collector to refer the matter to the Government with his comments and not for the Municipal Council to approach the Government
By comparing the provisions of Section 415 of the Act with Section 334 of Municipalities Act it will be seen that the structure of the former is different from the latter
Section 4 15 speaks of dispute between the Corporation and local authority as regards anything done or to be done under the Act
And such a dispute shall be referred to the Govern ment for decision
Section 334 refers to a dispute on a matter in which the Municipal Council and local authority are jointly interested and it states that such dispute shall be referred to the State Government for decision
Section 334 does not refer to the dispute as regards anything done or to be done under the Act
 Section 415 does not speak of any dispute in which the Corporation and the local authority are jointly interested
Secondly there are no rules framed for operation of Section 415 of the Act
In view of these differences the view taken by the High Court
That the Corporation must take steps to resolve the dispute cannot be justified
It has apparently no support 151 either from the terms of Section 4 15 or from any rules framed for the purpose
In the result we allow the appeal and reverse the judgment of the High Court
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
TNA Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolitian and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 the Act the Government took over a hospital which was run by a Zamindar of an impartible estate
After the take over the Government made applications before the Estate Abolition Tribunal claiming recovery of certain amounts which were endowed to the hospital by the erstwhile ruler from out of the compensation paid on the abolition of the estate
Claims for interest and priority over other creditors were also made
In the first of such applications the Tribunal allowed the amount claimed without specific reference to interest but rejected the claim for priority
In the subsequent proceedings the Tribunal rejected the claim for interest as also priority and held that in the earlier proceeding also it has disallowed the claim for interest
Aggrieved against the Tribunal s orders Government preferred appeals before the High Court
The High Court took the view that while allowing the claim the Tribunal had not only allowed the claim for principal but also interest thereon and ordered payment of interest as claimed
These appeals are against the High Court s orders and the appellant contended that there was no provision in the Act for payment of interest that the expression amount  claimed before the Tribunal should be construed to mean the principal amount only that the subsequent claims for inter est were barred by resjudicata that it would be 135 inequitable to claim interest on the amounts endowed since no interest was paid on compensation that while the compen sation was shared by others also the appellant cannot be singled out to pay the interest
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD 11 The High Court was right in holding that the Tribunal by its order of 151202 had allowed the claim for interest
Under the scheme of the Act itself the Tribunal was required to apportion the amounts according to the priorities depending upon the amount of compensation depos ited at the time of giving of the direction in question
It was therefore only to be expected that the Tribunal would first give directions with regard to the payment of princi pal amounts and defer the payment of interest to a future date
That is exactly what the Tribunal had done in the present case and hence in the second set of applications made by the Government the Government had not only claimed the balance of the principal amounts but also interest thereon
Thus the issue with regard to the claim for inter est in the subsequent applications was not barred by resju dicata
141B C D
12 All that the Tribunal had done was to direct the Estate to pay the amounts in question to the Government together with interest at the admitted rate which interest was in any case payable towards the endowment objects
Under the Act the Tribunal had among other things to determine the liability of the Estate
The endowment amounts together with the interest admittedly accruing thereon formed the total liability of the Estate
The interest further was a recurring one and the objects of the endowment were to be financed from out of the said interest
When the Tribunal directed the payment of interest together with the principal amount it did nothing more than direct the Estate to honour its liability
141F G 2
Whether or not interest was paid on compensation due to the Estate it has nothing to do with the Estate s li ability towards the endowments
The interest directed to be paid by the Tribunal was not interest over and above the endowed amounts
It is the principal amount together with the interest accruing thereon which constituted the total endowed amounts at the time of abolition of the Estates 142A B 3
The direction of the High Court to pay the said amount will have to be read as a direction to the appellant to do so in his capacity as the Estate holder and not in his individual capacity
If the final amounts 136 are already distributed among all the sharers andor the creditors the Government has to look for the amount of interest to all the sharers andor their creditors including of course the appellant
All the sharers will be liable to contribute towards the payment of the amount of interest in proportion to their share in the compensation
That is how the order of the High Court and the earlier order passed by the Tribunal will have to be read and construed
142E H 143A