THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.895 OF 1994 DATED:21-10-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22-03-1994, in O.S.No.30 of 1982 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein the said suit filed by the appellant herein-plaintiff for declaration that the general revision of property tax of 1981 was illegal, void and unenforceable, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents 1 & 2-municipality. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein is a registered body and the suit is filed in representative capacity on behalf of the tax payers of the Narasaraopet municipality alleging that the general revision of the municipal tax undertaken by the municipality in 1981 was void and illegal as the annual rental value was not fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), but was fixed arbitrarily. 4. Respondents 1 & 2-municipality filed written statement contending that the assessment of annual rental value is made duly following the procedure prescribed by law. Respondents also contended that the suit filed in a representative capacity is not maintainable and only individual assessee, if any, aggrieved over the assessment can question the same as the annual rental value and the tax fixed thereon varies from building to building. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is filed by the plaintiff against proper persons and if not whether the suit cannot be maintained against municipality for want of proper representation? 2. Whether D1 is not a necessary party to the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff Sangham is legally entitled and has locus standi to maintain the suit? 4. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 5. Whether the Court fee paid is not correct? 6. Whether the revision of the property tax of 1981 is illegal, void and unenforceable as opposed to statutory procedure? 7. Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable? 8. To what relief? and the following additional issue: Whether the revision of taxes in respect of the houses of defendants 3 to 8 is liable to be set aside? 6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B48 were marked. Exs.X1 to X7 were also marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held issue Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff. On the main issue Nos.6 & 7, the trial Court however held that the entire general revision cannot be set aside in a suit filed in a representative capacity. The trial Court also held that the valuation officer took measurements of the houses and fixed the annual rental value according to the procedure prescribed. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court having held that the suit filed in representative capacity is maintainable, erred in holding that the general revision cannot be set aside in such a suit. 9. It is to be noted that the suit is substantially one to set aside the individual assessments in each case and the prayer in the plaint is also to declare the revised assessments and taxes imposed by the defendant as illegal. As the plaintiff association is shown to be a registered body, the suit was held to be maintainable in representative capacity. It does not mean that the plaintiff would be entitled for grant of the relief prayed for simply because the suit is maintainable. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants, held that the valuation officers have duly followed the procedure prescribed in assessing the annual rental value and fixing the tax thereof. D.W.1, who was appointed as the valuation officer, deposed that he inspected all the houses and took measurements and issued notices to the tax payers and recorded the declarations made by the tenants and noted the construction of the buildings and he took only the annual rental value as the criteria for fixing the tax. It is also in his evidence that in respect of the owner occupied houses he took into consideration the hypothetical rents prevailing in the locality and in respect of the buildings constructed prior to 1957, he fixed the fair rent as per the provisions of the Act and even in respect of the buildings occupied by the tenants and constructed prior to 1957, he took only the actual rents that have been paid by the tenants and in respect of the owner occupied houses constructed prior to 1957, he fixed the annual rental value taking into consideration the fair rent fixed as per the provisions of the Act. 10. D.W.2, who was appointed as valuation officer, stated that he received 2599 revision petitions and issued notices to all the revision petitioners and confirmed the house tax in respect of 1524 revisions and reduced the house tax in respect of 675 and rejected 201 applications and sent Ex.B.22-final report to the Director, Municipal Administration. The relevant entries in the property tax assessment registers, declarations given by the tenants coupled with the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 establish that the valuation officers have followed the procedure prescribed under law while fixing annual rental value and the tax payable thereon. When that is so, if any particular tax payer is aggrieved over the assessment of tax in respect of his building, he ought to have questioned the same putting forth the specific grounds on which the assessment, according to him, was not proper and correct. When it is shown on evidence that the general revision has been made duly following the procedure prescribed under law, the entire general revision cannot be set aside in a suit filed in representative capacity. In fact, the evidence of D.W.2 would show that the tax was reduced in respect of 575 buildings while considering the revision petitions. 9. In a decision reported in K.P.VENKATA SUBBAIAH AND OTHERS v. THE HINDUPUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AND SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL OFFICER, HINDUPUR[1], this Court held that: “The suit is really one questioning the assessments made in individual cases on the ground that they are arbitrary and capricious without due regard to the actual rents received and opposed to the provisions of the Act. By merely adding certain grounds which are common to all and which are wholly unsustainable, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to contend that there is a community of interest. The suit is substantially only to set aside the individual assessment in each case. The prayer in the plaint is also to declare the revised assessments and taxes imposed by the defendant as illegal and to restrain the defendant from collecting the enhanced levy. In order to obtain this relief, each particular house owner has to show how the assessment made in his individual case is invalid or illegal. The plaintiffs therefore, cannot be permitted to sue in a representative capacity”. 10. The trial Court, following the above decision, held that the suit in representative capacity to set aside the assessments in general is not maintainable. The relief prayed for is also for declaration that the general revision of property tax of 1981 is void, illegal and unenforceable. The suit is filed in a representative capacity. When once general revision is found to have taken place in accordance with law, the relief prayed for cannot be granted inasmuch as it only tends to set aside the individual assessments. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the revised assessment affects a variety of persons and they depend upon the particular facts in each case and the entire exercise of general revision cannot be set aside, especially when general revision is found to have taken place duly following the procedure prescribed under law. The principle laid down in the decision cited supra, followed by the trial Court, squarely applies to the facts of the present case as well. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal. 11. In the result, Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st October, 2010. Tsy [1] 1976 (1) APLJ 302