# THE CENTURY SPG. & MFG. CO. LTD v. DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF ULHASNAGAR - **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 211 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-11-09 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2014, 2565 and 2567 of 1966 - **Bench:** J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri, J. M. Shelat - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-century-spg-mfg-co-ltd-v-district-municipality-of-ulhasnagar-4310 - **Pages:** 16 ## Headnote Bombay Di>rrict Municipal Act (Hom. 3 o/ 1901), ss. 4, 7, 59 60, 61,. 62, 63 and Home Tax Rules framed under s; 46 of the Act-Rules I, 3 and Schedule !-Notification selling up rnunicipality whether invalid for contravention of ss. 4 and 1-House 1'.ax Rules whether in conformity with ss. 59-63 of Act-Flat Rate on ccrpet area ·whether a perrnissible 1nethod of assessn1ent--Open land not liable to be included fur purpose of rating factory buildings. By notifications issued under the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901, the State of Bombay set up the respondent Municipality comprising portions of certain villag.;:s. The Munjcipality framed .House Tax Rules. under s. 46 of the Act and served notice to the appellant-company that it propo\caid recognised melhods, . Soction 60 leaves it to the option of t ## Text _Characters 0–39,285 of 45,449. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39285 for what follows._ A ll c D E G H THE CENTURY SPG. & MFG. CO. LTD. v. DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF ULHASNAGAR November 9, 1967 [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] Bombay Di>rrict Municipal Act (Hom. 3 o/ 1901), ss. 4, 7, 59 60, 61,. 62, 63 and Home Tax Rules framed under s; 46 of the Act-Rules I, 3 and Schedule !-Notification selling up rnunicipality whether invalid for contravention of ss. 4 and 1-House 1'.ax Rules whether in conformity with ss. 59-63 of Act-Flat Rate on ccrpet area ·whether a perrnissible 1nethod of assessn1ent--Open land not liable to be included fur purpose of rating factory buildings. By notifications issued under the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901, the State of Bombay set up the respondent Municipality comprising portions of certain villag.;:s. The Munjcipality framed .House Tax Rules. under s. 46 of the Act and served notice to the appellant-company that it propo\caid recognised melhods, . Soction 60 leaves it to the option of tbe- municipality for arriving at the annual value for assessment of the rate to choose any one of the aforesaid recognised methods, the only restriction being that it must specify in the rules which basis of valualivn capital or annual letting value or any other basis, it proposes to adopt'. [218H; 219B! The Municipality had complied with the procedure required by tho Act before a tax was imposed by selecting the tax, by laying down the class of property which it desired to make liable, the amount of the rate at which such property would be liable and lasUy the basis of valuation for purposes of the rate on buildings and houses. [22vF-G] (iii) (a) Schedule I to Che Rules expressly providcs that the house tax is lo be assessed on the Lasis of the annual letting value. The annual letting V-dlue can he arrived at by any one of the recognised methods. Neither 'the Rules nor Sch. I constri :t the Municipality to adopt ""Y one particular m·~thoJ of arriving at the annual letting value. ll may wet; be that a flat rate on the carpet area may correspond to the annual Jeni~~ value of a buildmg in which case it would be the annual letting value as provided bv Sch. 1 which would ·be the basis of asse~sment, lf it is not. the own-,r or occupier of the building can legitimately challenge the assessment on thi: ground that such assessment on the basis of a fhit rate on the carpet area do:s not reflect the annuJI value so calculatc. C. Bhartari. Ravinder Narain and 0. C. Mdthur, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 2014 of 1966). B c n· F G 11 B c D E F G H CENTURY SPG. co. v. MUNICIPALITY (Shelat, I.) 213 S. T. Desai, A. B. Diwan, Ravinder Narain and 0. C. Mathur, for the 11ppellant (in C.A. No. 2565 of 1966). A. B. Diwan, Ravrnder.Narain and 0. C. Mathur, for the the open lands; ( 4) that the a,sessmen l was bad or, account of discrimination between the app.:!llant companies inter r: · se inasmuch. as whereas nssessment was made in the case of the~ Century Mills1 on th:c basis of cost of .constructiem the :issessment in respect o( ot)ler appellant ·companies was made at. a flat rate 'on the ca,rpet an'a occul?ied by them·; ( 5) that the register prepared under sec. 65 became operative after the d(lte of tl\ca·uthentication of the said list anq that therefore the tax for .the period ·prior to t]le_ said date was illegal; ( 9) that the tax was F imposed -b)( the· Municipamy which had no legal existence .as the tenure of "one vear of its. couilcillqrs was over"by Septem~r 30, 1961, and that-therefore thp sa:fd rules were- ineffective and lastly that-1 the appointm.ent of the Pre~iC:ent and tl1e Vice-P're.,idcnt of the· responden~ Municipality was. illegal. , 'rbe Higij Court d.ismissed the._petitions holding (1) that the said Rules were vahd; G (2) that 1hc principles of valuation were not modes of valuation and therefore it ,was not neces.sary to Jay down in the said RJ!Jes methods by whi~h the valuation should b'e. arrived at; {3) that tbe ·assessm~nt list was proper; (4) ,that th6μgh untjer the said Rules ,only houses aiia bui_ldings and not ·oIJ!:n lands FQuld bt: taxed it was impos~ible, to say in a writ petition without a detailed H inguiry as to whet)ler the tax in fact, was levied on open Janos ·or-tas adjuncts to their factories m~rely because their valuation was separately made. and tha,t the\efore such a question should • A CENTURY SPG. co. v. MUNICIPALITY (She/at, J.) 21" be more properly raised in the appeals filed by the Companies: ( 5) (a) that the Municipality was entitled to levy tax for the official year 1963-64, (b) that the appointment of the said President and Vice President was valid and lastly that the re»· pondent Municipality though an interim municipality was com· petent to levy the said tax. n Mr. Gupte for the Century Mills raised the following contentions which were adopted by Counsel for the other companies: ( l ) that the said notifications were invalid having regard to secs. 4 and 7 of the Act; (2) that the House Tax Rules were not in conformity with c secs. 59 to 63; ( 3) that the bill served oa the Mills was not in accordance with the Rules; (a) to the ex!ent that the said bill sought l of which were specified in the Schedule thereto. The said Schedule set out the boundaries of the proposed municipal district by showing Ulbas river as its boundary in the north and certain survey numbers of 216 SUPREMt COURT REPORTS [1968] 2 S.C.R. the said villages a' boundaries in the east, south and west. After considering the objections as required by the Act the Government by a further notification dated September 20, 1960 declared tbe said local area of which the same boundaries were set out in the Schedule thereto to be a permanent mun;cjpaJ district. It i-; true that in constituting the municipal district of Ulhasnagar the ·Government included parts of villages enumerated in the said Schedule. But the qucsti~n is, was the Government competent to do so or not. Section 4 provides that subject to secs. 6, 7 and 8 the Government may declare by a notification any local area to be a municipal district and may, by a like notification; extend, contract or otherwise al'.er the limits of any municipal district, that every such notification constituting a new municipal district or altering the limits of an existing municipal district shalt clearly setforth the local limits of the area to be included in or. excluded from such municipal district as the case may be and when so done it is the duty of the municipality already exrstiiig or of every ·municipality newly constituted or whose limits are altered to set up as required by the Collector boundary marks defining its limits or the altered limits of the municipal district subject to it~ authority. Section 7 provides that any local area which comprises of (a) a city, town, or station or two or more neighbouring cities, towns or stations with or w:thout any village, suburb or land adjoining th.~reto 0r (b) J village or suburb or two or more neighbouring villages or suburbs, may be declared a pennanent municipal district. It will ~e seen that while the Government can declare a municipal district cOtnprlsing of two or more neighbouring cities, towns or s•ations or a village or suburb or two or more neighbouring villages or suburbs. sec. 7 expressly provides that such a local area may comprise not only of N'O neighbouring villages or suburbs but a15o Jaiid adjoining to a village or suburb. Therefore while constituting a municipal district the Government. when it is expedient so to do, can join to an existing village or suburb the land adjoining thereto. Similarly sec. 4 empowers the Government tn extend, ~ontract or otherwise alter from time to time the existing limits of a municipal district or declare any local area to be a municipal district. There is nothing either in sec. 4 or sec. 7 to limit the power of the Government in constituting a municipal district to include therein the whole of the village or suburb as contended. The Act, on the other hand, pennits the Government to incluJe "lJnd adjoininll thereto" which shows that a part of the Jan~ a.djoi.ning to an existing village or a suburb can also be added 1f tt 1s thought expedient so to do. Likewise, while altering the limiL' of , an existing municipal district it can exclude from or include in it part of the land where it becomes necessary or expedient to do. That being so, it is impossible to say' that b ytaking parts of the villa)!e' set out in the Schedules to the two notifications the Government A B c D E F G H A R c ]) E F G H CENTURY SPG. CO. V. MUNICIPALITY (S/ie/at, J.) 217 formed a municipal clistrict contrary to the provisions of secs. 4 or 7 or that the constitution by it of the municipal district of Ulbasnagar was in any way contrary to or ultra vires the two sections. The next contention was that the House Tax Rules framed by the municipality were not in conformity with sec. 60 inasmuch as they failed to prescribe the basis of valuation of each class of property on which it imposed the house tax, that what these .Rules provided was merely to impose the house tax at the rate of 15 % or Rs. 12/ - whichever was more on the valuarion arrived at after <;feducting 10% from the annual letting value without specifying the method by which such annual letting value wall to · be arrived at. The argument was that it was incumbent on the Municipality to Jay down specifically :n the Rules, the method or methods by which such annual letting value had to be calculated and not having done so the Rules were not in accord with the express provisions of sec. 60. Mr. Gupte argued that the High Court was in error in holding that this was not necessary on the mere ground that sub-clause (iv-a) of sec. 60(a) was inappropriate or that the legislature had inserted that sub-clause without properly understanding its implications. Dealing wi~h this contention the High Court observed as follows:- "Inasmuch as in 190 l Act in sec. 60 there was no provision corresponding to the Explanation to sec. 75 of the 1925 Act, the addition of sub-clause (iv-a) of sec. 60 was most inappropriate and has no meaning. In the Act of 1925 it had to be provided because both the land and the building could be taxed on the basis of the annual letting value, or, if the Municipality so chose, the land could be taxed on the basis of capital value and it is for this reason that it became aecessary to provide that a rule shall be framed by the municipality laying down the basis on which valuation has to be made." "In fact, there is nothing, either in the provisions of the Municipal Boroughs Act or in the provisions of the present Act, to suggest that what was intended by clause 3 in sec. 75 of the 1925 Act and by sub-clause (iv-a) of cl. (a) of sec. 60 of the 1901 Act, was that the Municipality was required to frame rules prescribing the modes by which the annual letting value was to be determi11ed." Sec. 3(11) defineo "annual letting value" as the annual rent for which. any building or land might reasonably be expected to let IOSup.Clj67-l 5 218 SUPREME COURT RLl'ORlS 11968] 2 s ( " from year to year. Sec. 59 ( J) provides that a municipality, after obser'ing the procedure required by sec. 60 and with th.e sanction of the State Government in the case of city municipalities and in other cases of the Commissioner, may impose any of the following taxes, that is to say, (i) a rate on buildings, or lands or both, situate within the municipal district; (ii) a tax on all or "any vehicles, boats" etc. Sub-clauses (iii) to (ix) describe various other imposts which the municipality can impose such as toll. octroi, cess and a general or special water rate or tax. It will be seen that though sub-sec. I authorises the municipality to impose "the following taxes", when it comes to imposing a tax on buildings or lands or both it describes the tax as "rate", in distinction of the other imposts described variously as toll, cess, octroi and tax. The distinction as pointed out in Patel Goverdhandas Har- /?Ovindas v. Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad(') is a deliberate one. As laid down there the word "rate" in sec. 59( I) must be understood to mean a tax for local purposes imposed by local authorities the basis of which is the annual value of the lands or buildings arrived at in one of .the three ways, vi:., (I) actual rent fetched by sueh land or building wttere it is actually let; (2) where it i~ not let rent eased on hypothetical tenancy particular!~ in the case of buildings and { 3) where either of these two modes is not available by valuation b; sed on capital value from which annual value has to be found by applying a suitable percentage which may not be the same for lands and buildings. It 1s therefore legitimate to infer that the Jcgislatur.~ intended this meaning of the word "rate" in s. 59 (I) by using the word "rate" a' distinct from other imposts specified in that ·very sub-section and designated as toll, cess, tax etc. Section 60 provides that before imposing any one of these taxes the Municipality shall by a r~~o lution select one or other of those taxes, prepare rules tbe~efor, specify by such resolution and in such rules the class or classes of persons or of property or of both which the municipality desire' to make liable, the amount for which or the rate at which it is desired to make such classes liable and by sub-clause (iv-a) in the case of a rate on buildings or lanGs or both the basis, for ;:ach class, of the w_~uation on which the rate is to be imposed Section 60 therefore requires the municipality both in the said resolution and the said rules to specify (a) the class or classes of persons or property which it desires to make liable; {b) the amount or rate at which it wants such classes to be liable and ( c) in the case of buildings or lands or both the basis of valuation for each class of property, that is, building~ or lands or both. As aforesaid, in the cao;c of buildings or lands or both the Municipality can impose a "rate" and not a "tax". The rate is a~ understood in such statutes, viz., on the basis not of capital but on the annual (I) [19641 2 S.C.R. 608. A B c [) E (; II ( A B c CENTURY SPG. co. v. MUNICIPALITY (She/al, J.) 21 ~ letting value as observed in Patel Govardhandas Hargol·indas v. Municipal Commissioner, Ahtnedabad (1) ascertained by any of the said recognised. methods. The words "the basis, for each class, of the valuation" on which such rate is to be imposed indicate that the municipality can adopt any one of those basis for different classes of property, viz., buildings or lands for arriving at the annual value for each such class. Section 60 thus leaves it to the option of the municipality for arriving at the annual value for assessment of the rate to choose any one of the aforesaid recognised methods, the only restriction being that it must specify in the rules which basis of valuation; capital or annual Jetting value or any other basis, it proposes to adopt. Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925 contains provisions similar to those in sec. 60 of the present Act except that in addition it contains an Explanation which provides that "in the case of lands the basis of valuation may be either capital or annual Jetting value". But under sec. 7 5 the Borough Municipality also as the District Municipality under sec. 60 of the D . present Act is authorised to impose a "rate" and not a "tax". on buildings or lands or both. The effect of adding the Expknation to sec. 75 therefore is simply that whereas sec. 60 of the District Municipal Act leaves it to the discretion of the municipality to assess the annual value upon anfbasis of valuailon of its choice, the Explanation to sec. 75 in Act XVIII of 1925 restricts the choice to either the capital or the annual Jetting value. In both the cases, however, the Municipality can impose a rate and not a tax as understood in Ideal Acts, i.e., a rate on the annual letting value of the building or the land. That was why in Lokmanya Mills v. Barsi Borough Municipality(') .it was held that a rate may be levied by a municipality under the Bombay Municipal E F G H Boroughs Act 1925 on the valuation made on the basis of capital or on the annual letting value of a building and not on· a valua~ tion computed merely on the floor area of the s!ructures, that such a rate was clearly not a tax based either on the capital value or on the annual letting value, for, annual letting value postulates rent which a hypothetical tenant may reasonably be expected to pay for the building if let. Therefore, the municipality had no power under that Act to ignore the basis of valuation prescribed by the Act and to adopt a basis not sanctioned by the Act. There is therefore nothing inappropriate in adding sub-cl. (iv-a) in sec. 60 (a) by sec. 10 of Bombay Act XXXV of 1954 as observed by the High Court. The effect of both sec. 60 in the present Act and sec. 7 5 in the 1925 Act is the same. Both ~be classes of municipalities are authorised to impose rate on buildings or lands or both. The rate as consistently understood 1s a certain pi:rcentage on the annual value, such value being arrived (1) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 608. (2) [1962] I S.C.R. 306. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.C R at on a basis specified by it. The only difference·is that wherca' A .under the Bombay Act of 1925 where a rate is imposed on huildrngs or lan.ds, the Borough Municipality call arrive at the annual value on. either of the basis mentioned in the Explanation to sec. 75, that 1s e1t~er the. capital value or the annual letting va!ue only, no such rcstncuon m the ab>.encc of such an explanation as in s. 75 as to the basis of valuation is placed by sec. 60 of the 1901 K Act. A, rcquircJ by sec. 60, the Municipality ha' framed Ruic' under sec. 46 and selected the tax, viz.. the house-tax. Subclausc (iv-a) of sec. 60(a) no doubt requires the Municipality in the case of the rate on buildings or lands or both to specif) , the basis. for each class, of the valuation on which such rate " to be imposed. That is done in the pre.-;ent case by the Rules. Rule 3 of the House Tax Rules provides that in respect of every build;ng <>r house the house tax shall be payable to the Secretary or any other ~rson appointed by the Municipality for that purpose in each year by the OWQ-:!r or occupier thereof at the rates calculated in accordance wllh Schedule I. The Rul~ thus requires the a'isessing authority to assess the house tax calculated in accordance with Schedule I. Schedule I provides that the tax is to be assessed on the net annual letting value. that is, after deducting from the gross annual letting value 10% allowance in lieu of the cost of repairs or on any other account whatsoever. It also provides that the house tax is to be 15 % of such annual lettini: value or Rs. I 2/- per year whichever is more. Rule 3 and Sch. I thus specify as required by sec. 60(a) the rate. the class of property to be made liable 3nd in the case of houses or buildings the basis of valuation. vi: .. the annual letting value. The effect of Ruic 3 and Sch. I is that the assessing authority can assess the rate on buildings only on the annual letting value and no other value such as the capital value. The Municipality therefore ha-' complied with the procedure required by the Act before a tax '' impo!.ed by selecting the tax. by laying down the class of property which it desires to make liable. the amount of the rate at which such property would be liable and lastly the basis of valuation for purposes of the rate on buildings and houses. We are unable therefore to accept the contention that the basis of valuation is the method of valuation of annual value or with the contention of Mr. Desai for the companies in other appeals that the Ru'e' not only have to specify the classification of properties which are '°ught to be taxed but also the method of valua!ion for each class. vi: .. the rental basis. cost or capital value or the profits hasis. The fallacy in the contention lies in mixing up the me!l\Od with the basis of valuation. The basis as provided in the Rule.• i• the annual value which can be ascertained or arrived at t-oy any one or more of the recognised methods. D F G II ' ,. ': ·' A B c D E F G H CENTURY SPG. co. v. MUNICIPALITY (She/at, J.) 221, Though we are not able to accede to these contentions we think the ,appellants are on a surer ground in their third contention, viz., that the said house tax bills we1e not in accordance with the Kules to the extent that they sought- to assess the open lands. ln the case of the Century Mills the assessment first. made as aforesaid was for Rs. 1,97,609/52 nP a&sessed at fiat rate on the carpet area occupied by the Mills. The same was aiso the basis in respect of other appellant companies in the rest of the appeals. When the assessment was objected to by the Century Mills the assessing officer changed the method of assessment from the fiat rate on the carpet area to the construction cost taken from the Company's balance-sheet for 1962. Taking· the figure of Rs. 1,46,05,920 as the cost of construction of the buildings he assessed at 53 on the said cost after deducting 10% allowance in lieu of cost of repairs. He fixed the rate on buildings at Rs. 98,590 and Rs. 15,057 on the open land at the rate of Rs. 2 per 1000 sq. ft. The total assessment arrived at by him thus came to Rs. 1, 13,64 7. In the case of the other companies he retained the method of valuation adopted by him, i.e., a fiat rate on the carpet area but reduced the rate to a certain extent. The objection raised by the appellant ·companies is 'two-fold; ( 1) that the assessing officer can assess the 1,>uildings on their annual letting value and not at a fiat rate on the carpet area and (ii) that in assessing the rate he cannot include the rate on open lands. · As regards the first part of the objection, Sch. 1 to the said Rules expre5sly provides that the house tax is to be assessed on the basis of the annual letting value. The annual Jetting value can be arrived at by any one of the recognised methods. Neither the Rules nor Sch. 1 constrict the Municipality to adopt any one particular method of arriving at the annual letting value. It may well be that a fiat rate on the carpet area may correspond to the annual letting value of a building in which case it would be the annual letting value as provided by Sch. 1 which would be the basis of assessmeDt. If it is not, the owner or occupier of the building can legitimately challenge the assessment on the ground that such assessment on the basis of a fiat rate on the carpet area does .not reflect the annual value so calculated. The question is at best one of calculation, viz., whether considering other similar buildings .in the locality, their hypothetical rents and other data calculation of the house tax on the basis of caryet area at a fiat rate, corresponds to their annual letting viiiue. Smee such a question would be one of fact and can properly be decided in the appeals before the Judicial Magistrate we do not · propose to go into this question. It will be for the apJ?ellant companies to establish in th~ appeals that such a valuation at a fiat rate on the carpet area is 11ot eqwivalent to the annual letting value of their factnries and other buildings. LIO Sup Cl-67/16 S\:PREME EOURT REPORTS [1968] 2 S.CR The second pan of the objection unlike the Jmt pan however touches upon the validity of the assessment. The question is whether the bill includes ass.~ssment on open lands tis· such and if so whether the Rub permit their assessment. The bill served on the Century Mills clearly shows that Rs. 15,057 out of the total assessment of Rs. 1,13.647 are assessed on the open lands calculated at the fiat rate of Rs. 2 per 1000 sq. ft. The bills similarly served on the other appellants are all CJlculated at va~ing fiat rates on different areas of their properties. But the basis of the assessment though varying rates have been applied is the carpet area and the carpet area does include open lands in the case of each of the appellant comf>anies. Is the assessing oflicer authorised by the Rules to include the open lands while assessing the rates '1 Under sec. 59(1)(b)(i) the municipality. subject to observing the procedure laid down in sec. 60, can impose a rate on buildings or lands or both. As already observed the municipality, however, has jly its resolution to select the tax. and in the Rules prescribing the tax so selected specify the class or classes of property which it desires lo make liable as also· the rate at which it wishes to subject such class or classes of property. Sub-clause (iv-a) of sec. 60(a) requires that in the case of buildings or lands or both the basis of vaiuation for each such class has also to IJ.z specified by the said resolution and in the said Rules. We must therefore turn to the Rules to sec if they specify therein the open lands, the rate at which they are to be subjerted to the tax and the basis of valuation of such open l:inds. Ruic 1 (ii) of the House Tax Rules provides that these Rules shall exicnd to "all buildings or houses or shops or huts '(jhupras) whatsoever form any property" within the Ulhasnagar District Municipal limits except the tenements !yin)! vacant etc. Rule 3(7) defines a building or a house to which these Rules apply by virtue of Rule I (iii). A building or a house according to the definition given by Rule 3 ( 7) means "any building, house, shop, hut ( jhupras) and with a roof thereof constructed for human habitation or otherwise". Section 3 ( 7) of the Act contains no doubt a wider definition of the word "building" and includes within that word any hut, shed or other enclosure whether. used as human dwelling or otherwise and shall include also the walls (including compound wall and fencing) verandahs, fixed platforms, plinths, door-steps and the like. But that definition cannot be available to the respondent municipality as Rule 3(9) provides in express terms that only the words and expressions other than those d~fined in Rule 3 shall be deemed to be used in the Rules in the same sense in which they are used in the Act. Rule 3 (7) therefore expressly excludes the definition of the building given in the Act hy providing a special definition of a building or a house in Rule A B c D E F G H A B c D E r CENTURY SPG. CO. V. MUNICIPALITY (She/at, J.) 22:; 3 ( 7). It is clear therefore that the word "building" or "house" must bear the meaning given to it by this Rule and not the meaning given to it by the Act. It follows that as by virtue of Rule l (ii) these rules extend to buildings or .houses or shops or huts (jhu(>ras) only and a building or a house under Rule 3 (7) means a butldtng; house, shop, hut (jhupras) etc., with a roof thereon constructed for human habitation or otherwise, open lands obviously are not only not included in the t.erm "building" or "house" but the Rules do not extend to such open lands. In his assessment order dated March 6, 1964 passed against the Century Mills the assessing officer justified the inclusion of the open lands in the'· assessment by observing as follows : "The Superintendent (of the appellant Company) states that tb.e Municipality has decided to levy tax on the buildings or shops only and that there is no resolution, rule or bye-law "for the levy of house tax on land. ·Apparently the Superintendent's contention seems to be correct. But on deeper consideration it will be seen that the words "whatsoever form the property" have a significance and the same can include lands . also. According to the District Municipal Act of 1901, building includes, "any hut, shed or other· enclosure whether used as human dwelling or otherwise" and also "walls, verandahs, fixed platforms, plinths, door-steps and the like" .. Now the Century Rayon Factory is bounded by a compound wall in which all the open space lies. Whole enclosure can therefore be held as enclosure and is ·therefore liable for rating. On the whole, the Act and the Rules have empowered the Municipality for the assessment on the open s;>ace." -in our view, tb.e asse·ssing officer was clearly wrong, for, wh.at he did was to apply the definition of a building as given in sec. 3. of the Act instead of the definition in R. 3 ( 7), That he was not right in doing as Rule 3(9) excludes the application of that definition. He was bound by the definition of building in Rule 3 (7) G and in view of Rule 1 (ii) he could base his assessment only on the annual letting value of a building as provided by Sch. 1 and not the open lands. He was also not entitled to rely upon the words "whatsoev.er form any property" in Rufe 1 (ii) as those words go with the previous words "buildings or houses or shops or huts'" and do not include open lands to means buildings or houses. The H .reasoning of the High Court regarding the objectian to the cOilclusion of the open lands in the assessment also does not appear to be correct.