Appeals Nos 847 and 848 of 1966
388 Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 20 1965 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Writ Petitions Nos 108 and 109 of 1962
section C Manchanda and section section Shukla for the appellant in both the appeals
C B Agarwala and K P Gupta for the respondents in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
These appeals are directed against orders of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench quashing the im
Position of a water rate imposed by the Municipal Board Sitapur
Section 1261x of the UP Municipalities Act 1916 UP Act No 2 of 1916 empowers the Board to impose a water tax on the annual Value of buildings or lands or of both
Sections 131 to 135 lay down the procedure for imposing the tax
The High Court held that the levy was invalid as the Board did not comply with this procedure
A municipal board desiring to impose the tax is required by section 131 sub section
1 to pass a special resolution framing the preliminary proposal for the tax
The Municipal Board Sitapur passed a special resolution on January 24 1956 framing the proposal for the levy of water tax at the rate of 12 per annum on the annual value of buildings and lands and exempting buildings and lands whose annual value was Rs 24 or below
Section 131 sub section
2 requires the Board to prepare a draft of t he rules in respect of the proposed tax
The Board duly prepared the necessary draft rules
Section 131 sub 
3 requires the Board to publish in the manner prescribed in section 94 the proposal and the draft rules along with a notice in the form set forth in Schedule III
The draft rules along with the notice was published in the Rashtra Sandesh a local paper published in Hindi
The proposal was not separately published
But the proposal was to be found in the draft rules published in the local paper
Objections against the proposal were filed by the inhabi tants of the municipality
The Board duly considered the objections and passed orders thereon under section 132 sub section
After considering the objections and the recommendations of the prescribed authority under section 133 sub section
1 the Board decided to modify the original proposal by reducing the tax to 10 on the annual value and by exempting all lands and buildings whose annual value was Rs 36 or below
Section 132 sub section 2 requires the Board to publish the modified proposal along with a notice indicating that it is in modification of the original proposal and section 132 sub section
3 provides that the objec 389 tions to the modified proposal shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed by sub section
The modified proposal was not published as required by section 132 subs
The prescribed authority acting under section  132 sub section
2 duly sanctioned the final proposal and made the necessary rules in respect of the tax
It may be noted that the Commissioner Lucknow Division was the prescribed authority
On receipt of the order of sanction and the copy of the rules the Board acting under section 134 sub section
2 pas sed a special resolution on April 23 1957 directing the im position of the tax with effect from October 1 1957
This special resolution was not published in the manner prescribed by section 94
On receipt of the special resolution the prescribed authority acting under section 135 sub section
2 notified in the official gazette dated August 3 1957 the imposition of the tax from the appointed date
Section 135 sub section
3 provides that a notification of the imposition of a tax under sub section 2 shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act
 The respondents raised three objections against the validity of the imposition of the water tax   1  omission to publish the preliminary proposal separately in the manner prescribed by section 131 sub section
3 read with section 94 2 non publication of the modified proposal in accordance with section 132 sub section
2 and 3 non publication of the special resolution directing the imposition of the tax in accordance with section 94
The procedure laid down by the Act was not strictly complied with before imposing the tax  But all the procedural defects in the imposition of the tax are cured by section 135 sub section
3 where as in this case the Municipal Board has the power to levy the tax and has passed the special resolution necessary for the imposition of the tax and the defects are not of a fundamental character
The procedural defects cannot be regarded as fundamental or as invalidating the imposition if no substantial prejudice is caused thereby to the inhabitants of the municipality
The issue of the notification under section 135 sub section
2 is conclusive proof that all necessary steps for the imposition of the tax have been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act
In Municipal Board vs Raghuvendra1 the Court held that the defect of non publication of the special resolution proposing the tax in a local Hindi paper and omission to publish the draft rules as required by section 131 sub section
3 read with section 94 sub section
3 was cured by section 135 sub section 3 and that the publication of the special resolution by affixing a copy of it on the notice board and by beat of drum was sufficient
In Bland Sugar vs Municipal Board2 the Court held that the publication of the pro 1  2  390 posals and the draft rules in Hindi in a local Urdu paper was sufficient compliance with section 131 sub section
In Berar Swadeshi Vanaspathi vs Municipal Committee Shegaon1 the Court held that in view of the similar provisions of section 67 sub section
7 of the C P and Berar Municipal Act 1922 the validity of imposition of the octroi tax could not be challenged on the ground that the objections were not considered on the merits
As to the first objection we find that there was substantial compliance with section 131 sub section
The draft rules were published in the Rashtra Sandesh
They incorporated the preliminary proposal and mentioned the special resolution dated January 24 1956 by which the proposal was framed
There was thus sufficient publication of the proposal
The proposal was not separately published in the prescribed form but the omission to do so was a mere irregularity
The inhabitants of the municipality had due notice of the proposal
The object of the publication under section 131 sub section
3 is to inform the inhabitants of the proposal so that they can file their objections to it
That object was fully achieved by the publication in the Rashtra Sandesh
As to the second objection we find that the original proposal was to levy water tax at the rate of 12 per annum on the annual value
The inhabitants had full opportunity to raise objections to the rate of the tax and to submit whether the rate should be 12 or 10 or less
After considering their objections the Board proposed to levy the tax at the reduced rate of 10 per annum on the annual value
No prejudice was caused by not inviting fresh objections to the modified proposal of levying the tax at the reduced rate
It is interesting to notice that the UP Municipalities Amendment Act 1964 UP Act No XXVII of 1964 inserted in section 132 sub section
2 the following proviso  Provided that no such publication shall be necessary where the modification is confined to reduction in the amount or rate of the tax originally proposed
 This proviso was not in force
on January 24 1956
But it does indicate that it is unnecessary to publish a modified proposal reducing the rate of tax originally proposed
The original proposal exempted all buildings and lands whose annual value was Rs 24 or below
The modified proposal raised the exemption limit and provided that all buildings and lands whose annual value was Rs 36 or below would be exempted
The inhabitants of the municipality had full opportunity to raise objections as to the exemption limits as originally proposed and to submit whether buildings and lands of the value of Rs 24 or Rs 36 or more should be exempted
No prejudice was caused by not inviting fresh objections to the 1 391 modified proposal raising the exemption limit
The inhabitants submitted all objections which they could possibly I raise both with regard to the rate of tax and the exemption limit
In our opinion the non publication of the modified proposal was a mere irregularity and the defect was cured by section 135 sub section
As to the third objection it is to be observed that section 134
section 2 does not provide for the publication of the special resolution passed under it
Assuming that this special resolution had to be published under the general provisions of section 94 we think that the non publication was a mere irregularity
The inhabitants had no right to file any objections against the special resolution
They had clear notice of the imposition of the tax from the notification published in the official gazette on August 3 1957
The defect of the non publication of the special resolution in the manner prescribed by section 94 was cured by section 135 sub section
The High Court was in error in quashing the imposition of the water tax
In the result the appeals are allowed with costs in this Court and in the High Court the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed
There will be one hearing fee


Summary:
The Municipal Board Sitapur took various steps to levy water tax as authorised by section 1261x of the UP Municipalities Act 1916 and the special resolution imposing the tax with effect from October 1 1957 was passed on April 23 1957
The High Court held the levy to be invalid
In appeal filed by the Municipal Board this Court had to consider the effect of i the omission to publish the preliminary proposal separately in the manner prescribed by section 1313 read with section 94 ii the nonpublication of the modified proposal in accordance with section 1322 and iii the non publication of the special resolution directing the imposition of the tax in accordance with section 94
HELD The High Court was in error in quashing the imposition of the water tax
i Procedural defects in the imposition of the tax are cured by section 1353
Such defects cannot be regarded as fundamental or as invalidating the imposition if no substantial prejudice is caused thereby to the inhabitants of the municipality
The issue of the notification under section 1352 is conclusive proof that all necessary steps for the imposition of the tax have been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act
389E F Municipal Board vs Raghuvendra   Buland Sugar V Municipal Board  and Berar Swadeshi Vanaspathi vs Municipal Committee Shegaon  applied
ii In the present case there was substantial compliance with section 1313
The proposal was not separately published in the prescribed form but the omission to do so was a mere irregularity
The object of the publication under section 1313 is to inform the inhabitants of the proposal so that they can file their objections to it
That object was fully achieved by the publication in the local newspaper
390 B D iii The inhabitants submitted all objections which they could possibly raise both with regard to the rate of tax and the exemption limit
Noprejudice was caused by not inviting fresh objections to reduction of the rate of tax or the exemption limit
The non publication of the modified proposal was a mere irregularity and the defect was cured by section 1353
390 E iv Section 1342 does not provide for the publication of the special resolution passed under it
Assuming that it had to be published under the general provisions of section 94 the non publication was a mere irregularity cured by section 1353
391 C