Appeal No 188868
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10 1 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Civil Revision No 7667
DV Patel and SK Gambhir for the Appellant
VP Raman Addl
 YS Chitale and DN Mishra for the Respondent
The judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM J
This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Bench at Indore revising the order of the Additional Dis trict Judge and holding that the appellant is liable to pay tax from April 1 1954 and not from April 1 1965 only as held by the District Judge
The appellant is the owner of a factory at No 1 Shivaji Nagar Indore
On January 8 1954
the rental of the factory was assessed at Rs564 per month and the house tax payable at Rs47514 with effect from April 1 1951
The dispute is whether tax is payable from April 1 1954
By an order dated March 20 1956 the house tax was determined at Rs 8911 per annum by the Municipal Corpo ration with effect from April 1 1954
Against the said assessment the appellant preferred an appeal before the Municipal Appeal Committee Indore
Appeal Committee allowed the appeal and remanded the case for deciding it on merits after giving a hearing to the appellant
After re mand the Municipal Corporation again inquired into the matter and determined the rental value at Rs940 per month and reduced the tax to Rs7932 per year by an order dated 11th February 1957 as payable from April 1 1954
The appellant objected to the assessment and gave notice of objection under section 1471 of the Madhya Pradesh Munici pal Corporation Act 1956 but the objection was summarily rejected by the Municipal Commissioner
The appellant preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No 41 of 1957 to the 1st Additional District Judge Indore
By an order dated March 10 1960 the Additional District Judge 873 allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision afresh after proper inquiry
On remand a notice dated February 11 1963 was issued to the appellant under section 1441 of the  Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act  1956 as amended by Act 13 of 1961 calling upon him to
furnish the required information
The COrporation also issued another notice to the appellant on May 7 1964 informing the appellant that the Junior Overseer had submitted a report that considerable changes have been effected in the factory and calling upon him to
submit a detailed plan
The appel lant replied asking for details
Subsequently the appel lant received a notice dated October 12 1965 under section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act whereby he was informed that the annual valuation of the property was assessed at Rs1087020 and Rs76418 was fixed as the annual property tax with effect from April 1 1954
He was also informed that if he had any objection he could file his objections under section 1471 within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice
The appellant filed his objections on November 11 1965
The Commissioner rejected the objections by his order dated May 26 1966 and confirmed the valuation of the property and tax imposed by it on October 12 1965
The appellant was informed by the Corporation by its letter dated June 1 1966 that  the amount of Rs76418 as tax has been fixed with effect from April 1 1954 on the basis of the valuation of the annual income of Rs1087020
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner the appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No 70 of 1966 before the 2nd Additional District Judge Indore
The learned Judge by his order dated December 21 1966 partly allowed the appeal and held that the appellant would be liable to pay the property tax of Rs76418 with effect from April 1 1965 only and not from April 1 1954
The respondent Municipality then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court and the High Court by its order dated January 10 1968 in Civil Revision No 76 of 1967 allowed the Revision Petition and held that levy of the house tax at Rs76418 would be payable from April 1 1954 itself
Against the order of the High Court the appellant filed a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and on the grant of a special leave by this Court on August 231968 this appeal has come up before us for final hearing
The learned counsel for the appellant raised two conten tions
He submitted that as a fresh notice was issued under section 144 of the amended Act on October 12 1965 no tax could be imposed with retrospective effect and the order of the High Court directing payment of tax from April 1 1954 is against law
It was next contended that the decision_ of the 2nd Additional District Judge is final and the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with it
In any event it had exceeded its powers under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
874 From the facts set out it will be apparent that the order fixing the tax at Rs8911 per annum with effect from April 1 1954 was made on March 20 1956
That order was challenged before various forums
The Municipal Appeal Committee had first allowed an appeal preferred by the appellant and remanded the case to the Municipal Corporation
After remand the Municipal Corporation re duced the tax to Rs7932 by its order dated February 11 1957
But again the assessment was objected to under section 1471 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act
The Municipal Commissioner dismissed the objections and thereupon there Was an appeal to
the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal on March 10 1960
After remand the Corpo ration reduced the tax further and fixed it at Rs76418 with effect from April 1 1954 by its order dated October 12 1965
The appellant filed objections and the objections were rejected by the Commissioner by its order dated May 26 1966
Against the order fixing the tax at Rs 76418 the appellant filed an appeal to the 2nd Additional District Judge Indore who by his order dated December 21 1966 held that the property tax has to be paid only from April 1 1965 and not from April 1 1954
That order was challenged by the Municipality before the High Court which allowed the Civil Revision and held that the house tax at Rs 76418 is payable from April 1 1954
It will be thus seen that the proceeding related to the tax payable from April 1 1954
The point that is taken by the learned counsel is that after the remand by the learned District Judge by his order dated March 10 1960 the proceedings started by the Municipality by its notice dated October 12 1965 were under section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and as the new Act was not retrospective in its effect the tax is payable only from April 1 1965
This plea cannot be accepted as from the narration of the facts it can be seen that it was a continuous proceeding relating to the tax payable from April 1 1954 and there is no substance in the plea that the notice amounted to notice of fresh assessment or re assessment
Equally untenable is his plea that the notice given by the Municipality on October 12 1965 cannot have the effect of levying tax for any period earlier than April 1965
The notice issued by the Municipal Corporation bearing No 18000 dated February 11 1963 runs as follows  Under section 1441 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act you are hereby informed the necessary particulars in the proforma given below together with the detailed plan of the building of the abovemen tioned factory may please be furnished within 7 days from the receipt of this letter for the purpose of assessment
As the case has been remanded by the court it is necessary to make assessment again
 The notice itself specifically states that the assess ment was to be made again in pursuance of the order of remand
The notice No 10195 dated October 12 1965 is under section 146 of the Municipal Act and it stated that on remand of the matter from the District Court 875 regarding the assessment of the property
No1 Shivaji Nagar the annual tax has been assessed at Rs 76418 and called upon the appellant to file any objections if he has within 30 days from the receipt of the notice under section 1471 of the Act
The notice itself makes it clear that the Commissioner was proceeding to fix the value in pursu ance of the remand and called upon him to file his objec tions under section 147
The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner is not authorised to determine the value and impose a tax for any period before the date of issue of the notice
This contention ignores the fact that the valuation and determination of the tax from the year 1954 was pending and the proceedings related to
that period
Section 3 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act of 1956 amongst other things provides under sub section 3 that All rates taxes and sums of money due to the Municipalities of such city when this Act is made applicable shall be deemed to be due to the Corporation and under subsection 4 of section 3 All suits or other Legal proceedings civil or criminal insti tuted by or against the Municipality of such city may be continued by or against the Corporation
 The proceedings were originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act 1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the house tax were not concluded when under the new Act the Corporation became entitled to pursue the proceedings
We do not see any basis for the contention that under the new Act the Municipality had no power to pursue the proceedings regarding the levy of the tax for an earlier period
We therefore reject the first contention as being without any substance
The second contention is based on section 149 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1956
It pro vides that any appeal shall lie from the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to the District Court when any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment
Sub section 1 of section 149 provides that the decision of the District Court shall be final
It was submitted that the decision of the District Court was therefore final and that the High Court was in error in entertaining a Revision Petition
This plea cannot be accepted for under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code the High Court has got a power to
revise the order passed by courts subordinate to it
It cannot be disputed that the District Court is a subordinate court and is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
That leaves us with the last contention of the appellant that the High Court acted beyond its power as a court of revision
This point will have to be summarily dismissed as the question of want of jurisdiction of the High Court was not raised before the High Court and therefore cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first time
The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the question involves total lack of powers of the High Court and this Court should hold that the order of the High Court is without jurisdiction
This Court has laid down the principles governing interfer ence under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is Bal devdas Shivlal  Anr
vs Filmistan Distributors India P Ltd  Ors 1 Ms DLF Housing and Construction Co P Ltd vs 1  8 206SCI77 876 Sarup singh and Ors1 and The Managing Director MIG Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Balanagar Hyderabad and Anr
vs Ajit Prasad Tarway Manager Purchase and Stores Hindu stan Aeronautics Ltd Balangar Hyderabad2 These cases have been referred to in the recent decision of this Court in The Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Suresh Chandra Jaipuria and Anr 3 and the attention of the learned Judges of the High Court was drawn to the law declared by this Court
We consider it unnecessary to discuss the law on the subject over again as this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the point was not taken before the High Court and the discretion of this Court to interfere or not is beyond question
In the result we find that there is no substance in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs
PBR Appeal dis missed
1 AIR 1971 SC 2324
2 3 AIR 1976 SC 2621


Summary:
Under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act 1954 the Municipal Corporation determined the house lax payable by the appellant in respect of his house with effect from April 1 1954
On appeal by the appellant regarding assessment the Additional District Judge remanded the case to the Corporation for a fresh decision after due enquiry
Ulti mately by a notice dated October 12 1965 issued under section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1956 as amended in 1961 the Corporation revised the amount of tax payable but maintained the date of liability for payment of tax as April 1 1954
On appeal by the appellant the additional District Judge held that the tax was payable with effect from April 1 1965 and not April 1 1954 for the reason that the tax was finally fixed after the notice dated October 12 1965
The Revision Petition of the Corporation was allowed by the High Court holding that tax was payable from April 1 1954 because the proceedings were started even before the 1956 Act came into force
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that 1  as the fresh notice was issued under section 146 of the 1956 Act on October 12 1965 after remand of the case by the District Judge house lax could be imposed only with effect from April 1 1965 and not retrospectively and 2 the order of the District Judge being final under section 1492 of the 1956 Act the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order and in any event the High Court exceeded its power under section 115 CPC Dismissing the appeal
HELD The proceeding relating to the house tax was a continuous proceeding relating to the tax payable from April 1 1954 and the notice issued by the Corporation after remand by the District Judge did not amount to notice of fresh assessment or re assessment
874 E F 1
There is no force in the contention that under the 1956 Act the municipality had no power to pursue the pro ceedings regarding the levy of tax for an earlier period
The notice issued by the Corporation to the appellant made it clear that the Commissioner was proceeding to fix the value in pursuance of the remand
The appellant s plea that the Commissioner was not authorised to determine the value and impose the tax for any period before the date of issue of the notice ignores the fact that the valuation and deter mination of tax from 1954 was pending and the proceedings related to that period
Section 33 of the 1956 Act pro vides that all rates taxes and sums of money due to the Municipalities when this Act was made applicable shall be deemed to be due to the Corporation and sub section
4 states that all suits and other legal proceedings instituted by or against a Municipality may be continued by or against the Corporation
The proceedings in the instant case were originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act 1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the house tax were not concluded when under the new Act the Corporation became entitled to pursue the proceedings
874F C 875A D 2
a Under section 115 CPC the High Court has power to revise the order passed by Courts subordinate to it
The District Court being subordinate to 872 the High Court is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
Moreover the question of want of jurisdic tion of the High Court was not raised before that Court and cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first time
875 F G b The principles governing interference by the High Court trader section 115 CIC have been laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions the last of which is The Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Suresh Chandra Jaipuria  Anr
AIR 875H 876A B Baldevdas Shivlal  Anr
vs Filmistan Distributors India P Ltd  Ors   Ms DLF Housing and Construction Co P Ltd vs Sarup Singh and Ors
AIR 1971 SC 2324 The Managing Director MIG Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Balanagar Hyderabad and Ant
vs Ajit Prasad Tarway Manager Purchase and Stores Hindu stan Aeronautics Ltd Balanagar Hyderabad AIR 1973 SC 76 and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Suresh Chan dra Jaipuria and Anr
AIR 1976 SC 2621 referred to