THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.472 OF 1993 Between: Food Corporation of India, rep. By its District Manager, ..Appellant Vs Bikkavole Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Executive Officer …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.472 OF 1993 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram challenging the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got various godowns within the jurisdiction of Biccavolu Gram Panchayat and it was assessed to property tax for the first time in 1984-85 to a sum of Rs.28,727-44 paise. The assessment is enhanced in the demand notice, that due was Rs.46,559-52 paise and also library tax. The plaintiff contends that the defendant has no right to levy property tax on the godowns inasmuch as the plaintiff is a Government corporation, since the Government has got interest no tax can be imposed. Further during the year 1986-87 the Panchayat has enhanced the tax without assigning any reason. The enhancement is therefore arbitrary and illegal and the plaintiff objected for the same but as the defendant has been pressing for the same, the amount was paid. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the enhancement of the property tax from 28,727-44 paise to Rs.46,608-44 is illegal and arbitrary and the suit is filed for recovery of the amount paid. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is bad for non-issuing a notice under Section 144 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act. For every five years there will be a general revision as per the provisions and rules of the Gram Panchayat Act. Biccavolu is a Gram Panchayat and it is industrially developed and the Collector, East Godavari District issued a notification on 05-07-1986 notifying the general revision and also appointed the revision officers. Accordingly, the revision was conducted after following the due procedure under the Panchayat Raj Act. The notification was also issued about the completition of the revision and available of the record and calling for objections. Taking into consideration the number of buildings owned by the appellant and also the value of it, the tax was enhanced in the revision. The suit is therefore not maintainable and at any rate it is barred by time. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of enhancement of tax of the godown at Biccavole from 28,727-44 to Rs.46,608-84? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of excess amount of Rs.17,881-42 paise from defendant? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the defendant, DWS.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8. The lower court after considering the material on record found that the plaintiff is not entitled for the declaration prayed for and the revision was done in accordance with the Rules and notification and at any rate the tax is not unreasonable and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is not liable to pay the tax as demanded by the defendant and entitled for the declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? POINTS:- Evidently, the plaintiff is owning godown within the Panchayat limits is not in dispute. However, when earlier the tax was imposed the non-liability to pay the tax was also not in dispute. It is only when the enhancement is said to have taken place the present claim was made stating that the buildings are exempted from tax as the Government of India has got a interest and therefore there can be no tax on the building and there could only be a tax on the services or the amenities if any provided by the plaintiff. This contention of the plaintiff was not accepted by the lower court. In this case it is to be noted that the taxes and the revision in this particular cases is governed by the Gram Panchayat Act. The contemporaneous provisions in the Municipalities Act or Corporation Act have no relevancy. The fact that the Gram Panchayat is authorised to enhance the tax by way of periodical revision cannot be doubted. In fact in order to prove this fact, the defendant has examined DWs.1 to 3 and the notification and the information to the public before the revision and after the revision is also established. Further in case of general revision either under the Panchayat Act or Municipalities Act, no individual notice is necessary. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Section 70 of Gram Panchayat Act, which empowers the Gram Panchayat to revise the tax from time to time. Certain procedures has been laid down and the rules are also provided in Schedule II. Under Schedule II in Rule 5 the exemption for houses from tax have been provided and evidently unlike the Railways or other buildings, there is no exemption from payment of Panchayat tax by any government building situated within the Panchayat. Therefore the contention of the counsel for the appellant that no tax can be levied on the structures cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6706 of 2004 where with regard to imposition of tax on Railway property by the Municipal Corporation some instructions were given and consequently the Government of India has also given some directions in Office Memorandum dated.15-12-2009. Evidently, those instructions have no application to the structures or buildings in the Grampanchayat. Sofar as the Railway Department is concerned the Panchayat Raj Act also provides for exemption. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that no tax can be imposed on structures is baseless and cannot be accepted. Further more, the claim that no personal notice was given is also untenable since no personal notice is required and on the other hand it is a general revision followed by due declaration and notification and registers were also available for verification. In such circumstances, the revision undertaken by the defendant is not in violation of any of the Rules. The plaintiff owning number of godowns and earning by way of rent cannot deny the small benefit for the defendant which has to sustain itself and develop the village by providing amenities. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly discarded all the contentions raised by the appellant and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the lower court. The points are therefore answered. The Appeal Suit is therefore dismissed with costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR