Civil Appeal No 1157 of 1974
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20th June 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No 411 of 1973
FS Nariman and P P Rao for the appellant
A Subba Rao for respondents Nos
1 10 12 31 33 and 36
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J
The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act
VI of 1965 hereinafter called the Act came into force on April 2 1965
Section 31a of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute a local area as a municipality
Section 31b empowers the Government by notification in the Gazette to declare its intention to include within a municipality any local area in the vicinity thereof and defined in such notification
Section 31c confers power on the Government to exclude from a municipality any local area comprised therein and defined in such notification
Under section 32 any resident of a local area or taxpayer of a municipality in respect of which a notification under section 31 is published may if he desires to object to anything therein contained submit his objection in writing to the Government within six weeks from the 546 publication of the notification and the Government is under an obligation to take all such objections into consideration
Under section 33 after the expiry of the aforesaid period o six weeks and on considering the objections the Government may by notification in the Gazette declare to be a municipality or include in or exclude from a municipality the local area or any portion thereof
By section 34 the provisions of the Act come into force in or cease to apply to and municipality or part thereof as the case may be on the date of publication of notification under sub section 3 if such date is the first day of April or in any other case on the first day of April immediately succeeding the date of publication of such notification
Respondents 1 to 36 are residents of two villages called Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram
Prior to the year 1966 the area comprised in these villages was not included within the municipal limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality
Most of these respondents own properties situated within the limits of the two villages but they were not assessed to property tax under the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area District Municipalities Act 1920 which was in force until the introduction of the Act
They used to pay taxes to the village Panchayat
In exercise of the powers conferred by the corresponding provision of the District Municipalities Act 1920 namely section 41c the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared its intention to include within the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipality the local area comprised in the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram
The district Municipalities Act 1920 was repealed by section 3911 of the Act which as stated earlier came into force on April 2 1965
On March 24 1966 the Government of Andhra Pradesh acting in the exercise or powers conferred by section 33 of the Act issued a notification including within the limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality the area comprised in the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram with effect from April 1 1966
on March 24 1970 and June 10 1970 the Municipal Council declared its intention to levy property tax in the areas newly included within the municipal limits
After considering the objections the Council passed a resolution on August 28 1970 confirming the levy of property tax on buildings and lands situated within the municipal limits with effect from October 1 1970
However the municipality issued notices to respondents 1 to 36 demanding property tax from them not from October 1 1970 but from April 1 1966 that is to say with effect from the date when the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram were included within the municipal limits
These notices would appear to have been issued on the supposition that taxes leviable under the District Municipalities Act 1920 could be levied under clause 12 Schedule IX of the Act unless the Government directed otherwise
On January 24 1971 respondents 1 to 36 filed writ petition 442 of 1971 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the State of 547 Andhra Pradesh and the Visakhapatnam Municipality asking for a declaration that the levy of property tax on their properties for the period prior to October 1 1970 was illegal
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the view that it was competent to the municipality under the District Municipalities Act 1920 to levy property tax on properties situated in the newly included areas from April 1 1966 to October 1 1970
Respondents 1 to 36 filed writ appeal 411 of 1972 against the decision on the Single Judge which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated June 13 1972
lt held that the provisions contained in clause 12 of Schedule IX had no application and that it was incompetent to the municipality to impose the property tax on the newly included areas without following the procedure prescribed by sections 81 and 83 of the Act
The correctness of that view is challenged by the Visakhapatnam Municipality in this appeal by special leave
The State of Andhra Pradesh is respondent No 37 to the appeal
The circumstance that whereas the preliminary notification declaring the intention of the State Government to include new areas within the municipal limits was issued under the District Municipalities Act 1920 the final notification confirming that intention was issued under the Act presents no difficulty
In so far as relevant Schedule IX clause 13 of the Act read with clause 1 provides that any action taken under the District Municipalities Act 1920 by any authority before the commencement of the Act shall unless inconsistent with the Act be deemed to have been taken by the authority competent to take such action under the Act
The preliminary notification though issued under section 41 c of the 1920 Act must therefore be deemed to have been issued under section 31b of the Act
The inclusion of the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram within the limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality is accordingly in order
The true question for our consideration is whether the property tax which could lawfully be levied under the District Municipalities Act 1920 can be levied after the repeal of that Act on properties situated in the areas included within the municipal limits after the constitution of the municipality
Section 3911 of the Act expressly appeals the District Municipalities Act 1920 from which it must follow that ordinarily no action can be taken under the Act of 1920 after April 11966 when the repeal became effective on the coming into force of the Act
But counsel for the appellant municipality contends that clause 12 of Schedule IX of the Act keeps the repealed enactments alive for tax purposes and therefore the municipality has authority to impose the property tax under the Act of 1920 notwithstanding its repeal by the Act
Schedule IX appears under the title Transitional Provisions and clause 12 thereof reads thus 548 12
Continuance of existing taxes etc
Any tax cess or fee which was being lawfully levied by or on behalf of any council at the commencement of this Act and which may be lawfully levied under this Act shall notwithstanding any change in the method or manner of assessment or levy of such tax cess or fee continue to be levied by or on behalf of the council for the year in which this Act is brought into 
force and unless the Government by general or special order otherwise direct for subsequent years also
 This provision cannot justify the imposition of tax under the repealed Act of 1920 on properties situated in the newly included areas
In the first place as the very title of Schedule IX shows the provisions contained in the Schedule are of a transitional nature
They are intended to apply during the period of transition following upon the repeal of old municipal laws and the introduction of the new law
Some time must necessarily elapse before a municipality can act under the new law but taxes have all the same to the imposed and collected during the interregnum
The object of clause 12 of Schedule IX is to authorise the levy of taxes which on the commencement of the Act were levied under the repealed laws
The material date for this purpose is the date of the commencement of the Act namely April 1 1966 and the legality of the exercise of the power conferred by clause 12 is to be judged in reference to that date
In other words if any tax cess or fee was being lawfully levied by or on behalf of any council on April 1 1966 and if it can be lawfully levied under the Act it can continue to be levied notwithstanding any change in the method or manner of assessment or levy of such tax cess or fee
On April 1 1966 no tax at all was being levied by or on behalf of any council on properties situated in Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram and therefore the appellant municipality had no occasion or power to direct that the property tax may continue to be levied on those properties
Continuance of existing taxes after the commencement of the Act being the theme of clause 12 and since the property tax was not levied by or on behalf of any council at the commencement of the Act on the properties situated in the two villages clause 12 has no application
Imposition of certain kinds of taxes is an obligatory function of municipal councils under the Act
Section 811a provides that every council shall by resolution levy a property tax a profession tax a tax on carriages and carts and a tax on animals
under
section 812 a resolution of a council determining to levy tax shall specify the rate at which and the date from which the tax shall be levied
The first proviso to this sub section requires that before passing a resolution imposing a tax for the first time or increasing the rate of an existing tax the council shall publish a notice in the prescribed manner declaring the requisite intention The council has further to invite objections and it is under an obligation to consider the objections received within the stipulated time
By section 83 when a council determines subject to the provisions of section 81 to levy any tax for the first time or at a new rate the Secretary shall forthwith publish a 549 notification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate at which the date from which and the period of levy it any for which such tax shall be levied
Section 83 is thus expressly subject to section 81 and under the latter provision no tax can be imposed for the first time unless the procedure prescribed therein is followed
Since the procedure prescribed by the first proviso to section 812 was not followed in regard to the period prior to October 1 1970 the levy of property tax on the properties of respondents 1 to 36 for that period is without the authority of law and consequently illegal
It was urged on behalf of The appellant that the first proviso to section 812 would apply only when a tax was imposed for the first time  and since appellant was levying properly tax long before its imposition on the properties of respondents 1 to 36 it was unnecessary to follow the procedure prescribed by the proviso
It is not possible to accept this submission
The Municipality might have been levying property tax since long on properties situated within its limits but until April 1 1966 the villages of Rarmakrishnapuram and Shriharipuram were outside those limits
Qua the areas newly included within the municipal limits the tax was being imposed for the first time and therefore it was incumbent on the Municipality to follow the procedure prescribed by the first proviso to section 812
Residents and taxpayers of those areas like respondents 1 to 36 never had an opportunity to object to the imposition of the tax and that valuable opportunity cannot be denied to them
It is obligatory upon the Municipality not only to invite objections to the proposed tax but also to consider the objections received by it within the specified period
Such period has to be reasonable not being less than one month
The policy of the law is to afford to those likely to be affected by the imposition of the tax a reasonable opportunity to object to the proposed levy
According to the appellant the residents of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram had an opportunity to object to the imposition of the tax when the State Government issued a notification under section 31b of the Act declaring its intention to include the two villages within the limits of the municipality
It is not possible to accept this submission either
When the State Government issues a notification under any of the clauses of section 31 any resident of the local area concerned or any tax payer of the municipality can object to anything therein contained meaning thereby anything contained in the notification
A notification issued under section 3 1 b contains only the declaration of the Government s intention to include within a municipality any local area in the vicinity thereof and defined in such notification
The right of objection would therefore be limited to the question whether a particular area should as proposed be included within the municipal limits
It would be premature at that stage to offer objections to the imposition of any tax because it is only after the final Notification is issued under section 33 that the question would at all arise as regards the imposition of a tax on the newly included areas
A notification under section 33 has to be followed by a 550 resolution under section 811 if the municipality wants to impose a tax and for the resolution to be effective the procedure prescribed by the first proviso to section 812 has to be followed
The appellant municipality short circuited this mandatory procedure and thereby deprived respondents 1 to 36 of the valuable right of objecting to the imposition of the tax
Finally relying on section 34 of the Act learned counsel for the appellant contended that the inclusion of the two villages within the municipal area attracts of its own force every provision of the Act with effect from the date on which the final notification is published by the Government under section 33
This argument is said to find support in a decision of this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd vs State of Haryana  Anr1
Far from supporting the argument we consider that the decision shows how a provision like the one contained in Section 34 cannot have the effect contended for by the appellant in the Atlas Cycle case section 54 of the Punjab Municipality Act
1911 provided that when any local area was included in a municipality this Act and   all rules bye laws orders directions and powers made issued or conferred under this Act and in force throughout the whole municipality at the time shall apply to such areas
The industrial area within which the factory of the Atlas Cycle was situated was by a notification included within the municipality of Sonepat
The municipality thereafter purported to impose octroi duty on the goods manufactured by the company without following the procedure corresponding to that prescribed by sections 81 and 83 of the Act
It was held by this Court that since section 54 of the Punjab Act did not significantly refer to notifications and since section 6210 of the Punjab Act spoke of notification for the imposition of taxes it was not competent to the municipality to levy and collect octroi from the company on the strength merely of the provision contained in section 54 of the Punjab Act
Tn the instant case what section 34 provides is that once a notification including any area within a municipality is published under section 33 The provisions of this Act shall come into force into   any municipality or part thereof on the date of publication of the notification under sub section 3 if such date is the first day of April or in any other case on the first day of April immediately succeeding the date of publication of such notification
by section 34 once a notification is issued under section 33 all the provisions of the Act come into force
That means that sections 81 and 83 which are a part of the act would also apply to the entire Municipal area
It would then be obligatory for the municipality to follow the procedure prescribed in these sections
Taxes can be imposed under the Act only by passing appropriate resolutions under section 81
Section 34 does not provide that on the inclusion of a new area within a municipality the resolutions passed by the municipal council before such inclusion will automatically apply to the new area
Plainly such could not be the intention of the legislature in 1  551 view of the importance which it has attached to the right of the citizens to object to the imposition of a proposed tax
Though therefore by reason of section 34 the provisions of the Act would apply to the new areas included within a municipality it is not competent to the municipality to take resourse to the resolution passed for imposing tax on the old areas for the purpose of levying taxes on new areas
The procedure prescribed by section 81 and 83 must be followed if a tax is proposed to be levied on the new areas
For these reasons we confirm the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under section 41c of the District Municipalities Act 1920 the State Government declared its intention to include within the limits of the appellant municipality the local areas comprised in two villages The 1920 Act was repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act 1965 which came into force on April 2 1965
Section 31b of the 1965 Act corresponds to section 41c of the repealed Act
Under s33 the Government may include within a municipality a local area after considering any objections submitted by the residents of the local are Under section 34 the provisions of the 1965 Act come into force in that area on the first April if that is the date of the notification under sub section
3 and in any other cases the first day of April immediately succeeding
The State Government in exercise of its power under section 33 of the 1965 Act issued the notification in March 1966 including within the limits of the appellant municipality the areas comprised in the two villages with effect from April 1 1966
In 1971 the Municipal Council after considering objections passed a resolution for levying property tax on land and buildings in the two villages with effect from October 1 1970 but The municipality issued notices to the respondents who were residents of those two villages demanding the property tax from them from April 1 1966 the date of inclusion of the villages
The respondents thereupon challenged the levy and the High Court upheld the challenge
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the appellant municipality was entitled to demand the tax even from April 1 1966 under cl 12 of Schedule 9 of the 1965 Act
This clause provided that any tax which was being lawfully levied by the municipal council at the commencement of the 1965 Act and which may be lawfully levied under that Act shall continue to be levied by the council unless the Government by general or special order directs otherwise
Dismissing the appeal to this Court  HELD 1 The inclusion of the two villages within the limits of the appellant municipality is in order because under cl 13 of Schedule 9 of the 1965 Act the notification issued under section 41 of the 1920 Act must be deemed to have been issued under section 3 1 of the 1965 Act
547 D F 2 However clause 12 of Schedule 9 cannot justify the imposition of the tax under the repealed Act of 1920 from April 1 1966 on property situate in the newly included areas
548 B C a The clause is of a transitional nature and its object is to authorise the levy of taxes which at the commencement of the 1965 Act were levied under the repealed law
That is in the present case if any tax etc was being lawfully levied by the appellant on April 1 1966 which was the date of commencement of the Act in the two villages and if it can be lawfully levied under the 1965 Act it can continue to be levied
But on April 1 1966 no tax at all
was being levied by or on behalf of the appellant on the property situate in the two villages included within the municipality on that date
Therefore the appellant had no occasion or power to direct that a property tax may continue to be levied on those properties and hence cl
12 has no application
548 C E b It cannot be urged that because the appellant was levying property tax on property situate within its limits other than the 2 villages the property tax was not being levied for the first time
Qua the two villages newly 545 included in the municipal limits the tax was being imposed for the first time and therefore it was incumbent upon the municipality to follow the procedure prescribed by the first proviso to section 812 because the residents of these areas had no opportunity to object lo the imposition of tax or for the municipality to invite objections and consider them
549 C E 3 The first proviso to section 81 requires that before passing a resolution imposing a tax for the first time the council shall publish a notice invite objections and consider the objections received within the stipulated time
Since the procedure was not followed in regard to the period prior to October 1 1970 the levy of property tax on the properties of the respondents for that period is without authority of law and consequently illegal
By section 83 when a council determines to levy any tax for the first time or at a new rate the Secretary shall forthwith publish a notification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate and the date from which the tax shall be levied
Section 83 is expressly subject to section 81 and under the latter provision no tax can be imposed for the first time unless the procedure prescribed therein is followed 548G 549 B 4 When the State Government issued the notification declaring its intention to include the two villages within the limits of the municipality the residents had an opportunity to object not to the imposition of the tax but only to any thing contained therein meaning anything contained in the notification that is to the inclusion within the municipality
The question of imposition of a tax within the included areas arises only after the final notification under section 33 followed by a resolution under section 81 1 
547F 550 B 5 It could not also be contended that mere inclusion of two villages with in the municipal area automatically attracts the tax
On the contrary what section  4 provides is that once a notification including any area within a municipality is published under section 33 the provisions of the Act that is sections 81 and 83 shall come into force in that area from the first day of April and hence the procedure prescribed therein will have to be followed550 F H Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd vs State of Haryana  Anr   explained