# VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICifALITY v. KANDREGULA NUKARAJU & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 544
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1157 of 1974
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew Andy. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/visakhapatnam-municifality-v-kandregula-nukaraju-ors-6629
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh District. Municipalities Act (6 of 1965) ss. 3, 81, 83 and
S<:hedu~e 9, Clause 12-Scope of-Inclusion of new areas within 1nunicipalitylmposition of property tax on residents of those areas without ful/owi11g Procedure in s. 81-Propriety.
Under s. 4(1)(c) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, lhe State Government declared its intention to include within the lirnits of the appellant-municipality the local areas comprised in two villages. The 1920··Act was repealed
by the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 which came into force on April
2, 1965.
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1965-Act corresponds to s. 4(1)(c) of the
repealed Act.
Under s.3(3), the Government may include within a municipality
a local area after considering any objections submitted by the residents of the
local area,
Under s. 3(4) the provisions of the 1965-Act conie huo force in
that area on the first April, if that iSi the date of the notification under sub-s. (3)
A
B
c
.and in any other ca·:.e, the first day of April immedia·tely succeeding. The State
Government, in exercise of Ns power under s. 3(3) of the 1965-Act, issued the
notification in I\1urch 1966 including within the limits of the appellant municipality the areas comprised in the two villages with effect from April I, 1966.
D
In 1970, the Municipal Council after considering objections, passed a reS-Olution
for levying property tax on land and. buil.dings in the two villages with effect
from October 1. 1970, but. the municipality issued notices to the respondo,;:nts,
who were residents of those two villages, demaJtding the property tax i'rom them
from April 1, 1966 the date of inclusion of the villages.
The respondents therell.pon challenged the
1 levy and the High Court upheld the challenge.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the appellant-municipality was
~ntitled to demand the tax even from April 1, 1966, under cl. 12 of Schedule
E
9 of the 19-65-Act.
This clause provided that any tax which was being lawfully
levied by the municipal council at the
comn1encentent of the 1965-Act
and
which may be lawfully levied under that ~\ct shall continue to be levied by
the council unless the Government by general or special order directs otherwise.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD: ( 1) 'The inclusion of the two villages within the li1nits of
the
.appellant municipality is in order, because, under cl. 13 of Schedule 9 of the·
1965-A<::t the notification issued under s. 4(1) of. tho 1920-Act must be deemed
to have been issued under s. 3 (l) of the 1965-Act. [547 D-F]
(2) However, clause 12 of Schedule 9 cannot justify the imposition of the
tax under the repealed Act of 1920. from April 1, 1966, on property situate·
in the newly included areas. [548 B-C]
(a) The clause is of a transitional nature and its object is to authorise the
levy of taxes which, at the co1n111encenie111 of the 1965-A ct. were levied under
!he repealed law.
That is, in the present case, if any tax etc. was being lawfully levied by the appellant on April 1, 1966, (which was the date of commencement of the Act in the two villag\!s) and if it can be lawfully levied under
the 1965-Act, it can continue to be levied.
But on April 1, 1966. no tax at all
was being levied by or on behalf of the appellant on the property situate in the
two villages included within the municipality on that date.
Therefore, the appelfant had no occasion or power to direct that a property tax may continue to be
levied on those properties, and hence cl. 12 has no app1ication. [548 C-E]
(b) It cannot be urged that because
the
appellant was levying property tax on property situate within its limits (other than the 2 villages) the
property tax was not being levied for the first time. Qua the two villages newly
F
G
H
~
j
..
.,,
I ...
•
~·
1(;
A
B
c
·~
D
E
F
G
H
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNIC. V. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, J.) 545
includeQ in the municipal limits, the tax was being imposed for the first time,
and therefore. it was incumbent upon the mu

## Text

544
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICifALITY
v.
KANDREGULA NUKARAJU & ORS.
AugusJ 29, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh District. Municipalities Act (6 of 1965) ss. 3, 81, 83 and
S<:hedu~e 9, Clause 12-Scope of-Inclusion of new areas within 1nunicipalitylmposition of property tax on residents of those areas without ful/owi11g Procedure in s. 81-Propriety.
Under s. 4(1)(c) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, lhe State Government declared its intention to include within the lirnits of the appellant-municipality the local areas comprised in two villages. The 1920··Act was repealed
by the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 which came into force on April
2, 1965.
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1965-Act corresponds to s. 4(1)(c) of the
repealed Act.
Under s.3(3), the Government may include within a municipality
a local area after considering any objections submitted by the residents of the
local area,
Under s. 3(4) the provisions of the 1965-Act conie huo force in
that area on the first April, if that iSi the date of the notification under sub-s. (3)
A
B
c
.and in any other ca·:.e, the first day of April immedia·tely succeeding. The State
Government, in exercise of Ns power under s. 3(3) of the 1965-Act, issued the
notification in I\1urch 1966 including within the limits of the appellant municipality the areas comprised in the two villages with effect from April I, 1966.
D
In 1970, the Municipal Council after considering objections, passed a reS-Olution
for levying property tax on land and. buil.dings in the two villages with effect
from October 1. 1970, but. the municipality issued notices to the respondo,;:nts,
who were residents of those two villages, demaJtding the property tax i'rom them
from April 1, 1966 the date of inclusion of the villages.
The respondents therell.pon challenged the
1 levy and the High Court upheld the challenge.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the appellant-municipality was
~ntitled to demand the tax even from April 1, 1966, under cl. 12 of Schedule
E
9 of the 19-65-Act.
This clause provided that any tax which was being lawfully
levied by the municipal council at the
comn1encentent of the 1965-Act
and
which may be lawfully levied under that ~\ct shall continue to be levied by
the council unless the Government by general or special order directs otherwise.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD: ( 1) 'The inclusion of the two villages within the li1nits of
the
.appellant municipality is in order, because, under cl. 13 of Schedule 9 of the·
1965-A<::t the notification issued under s. 4(1) of. tho 1920-Act must be deemed
to have been issued under s. 3 (l) of the 1965-Act. [547 D-F]
(2) However, clause 12 of Schedule 9 cannot justify the imposition of the
tax under the repealed Act of 1920. from April 1, 1966, on property situate·
in the newly included areas. [548 B-C]
(a) The clause is of a transitional nature and its object is to authorise the
levy of taxes which, at the co1n111encenie111 of the 1965-A ct. were levied under
!he repealed law.
That is, in the present case, if any tax etc. was being lawfully levied by the appellant on April 1, 1966, (which was the date of commencement of the Act in the two villag\!s) and if it can be lawfully levied under
the 1965-Act, it can continue to be levied.
But on April 1, 1966. no tax at all
was being levied by or on behalf of the appellant on the property situate in the
two villages included within the municipality on that date.
Therefore, the appelfant had no occasion or power to direct that a property tax may continue to be
levied on those properties, and hence cl. 12 has no app1ication. [548 C-E]
(b) It cannot be urged that because
the
appellant was levying property tax on property situate within its limits (other than the 2 villages) the
property tax was not being levied for the first time. Qua the two villages newly
F
G
H
~
j
..
.,,
I ...
•
~·
1(;
A
B
c
·~
D
E
F
G
H
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNIC. V. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, J.) 545
includeQ in the municipal limits, the tax was being imposed for the first time,
and therefore. it was incumbent upon the municipality to follow the procedure
prescribed by the first proviso to s. 81(2), because, the residents of those areas
had no opportunity to object to the imposition of tax or for the municipality
to invite objec_tions and consider them. [549 C-E]
,
(3) The first proviso to s. 81 requires that before passing a resolution imposing a tax for the first time the council shall publish a notice, invite ob_jectioos
and consid~r the objections received within the stjpulatcd time.
Since the procedure was not followed in regard to the period prior to October 1, 1970 the
levy of property tax on the properties of the respondents for that period is without authority of law and conseguently illegal.
By s. 83, when a council determines to levy any tax for the first time or at a n'ew rate the Secretary shall
forthwith publish a notification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate anu
the date from which the tax shall be levied.
Section 83 is expressly s1,1bjoect
to s. 81 and under the latter- provision no tax can be imposed for the first time
unless the procedure prescribed therein is followed.
[548G-549 B]
( 4) When the State Government issued the notification declaring its intention to include the two yillages within the limits of the municipality the residents
had an opportunity to object, not to the imposition of the tax but only to "anything contained therein'', meaning. anything contained in the notification, that is,
to the inclusion within the municipality. The question ot imposition of a tax
within the included areas, arises only ai'ter the final notification under s. 3(3)
followed by a resolution under s. 81(1).
[547F-550 BJ
(5) It could not also be contended ihat mere inclusion of two villages within the municipal area automatically
attracts the t&x.
On the contrary, what
s. 3 ( 4) provideJi is that' once a notification including any area \vithin a municipality is published under s. 3(3), the provisions of the Act, that is, ss. 81 and
83, shall come into fore~ in that area from the first day of April. and hence,
the procedure prescribed therein will have to- be followed. [550 p ... ,H]
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.
v.
Stare of Haryana & Anr., [1972] 1 S.C.R.
127, ex.plained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1157 of 1974.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated the
20th June, 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal
No. 4111 of 1973.
F. S. Nariman and P. P. R'ao. for the appellant.
A. Subba Rao, for respondents Nos. 1-10, 12-31, 33 and 36.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD J .-The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, VI
of 1965, (hereinafter called "the Act") came into force on April 2,
1965. Section 3(l)(a) of the Act empowers the State Government
to constitute a local area as a municipality.
Section 3(1) (b)
empowers the Government, by notification in the Gazette ''.to decl~r7 ~ts
intention to include within a municipality any local area in the v1c1ruty
thereof and defined in such notification".
Section 3 (1 )( c)
confers
power on the Go"ernment to exclude !rom a munici]Jaliti; any local
:uea compris~d therein and defined
m
such
notification.
lJ~der
section 3(2), any resident of a local area or ta:'payer of .a mu11:1c1pality, in respect of which a notification under se.ctton 3 (_I) IS publi:;h~.
may, if he desires to object to anything th.er~m ~ontamed, submit bis
objection in writing to the Govepunent w1thm six weeks from
the
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 s.c.R.
publication of the notification and the Government is under an obligation to take all such objections into consideration.
Under section
3 ( 3) after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six weeks and on considering the objections, the Government may by notification in
the
Gazette declare to be a municipality or include in or exc!nde from a
municipality, the local area or any portion thereof.
By section 3(4),
the provisions of the Act come into force in or cease to apply to any
municipality or part thereof, as the case may be, on the date of publication of notification under sub-section (3) if such date is the first
day of April, or in any other case, on the first day of April immediately
succeeding the {late of publication of snch notification.
A
Respondents 1 to 36 are residents of two villages called Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram.
Prior to the year 1966, the . area
C
comprised in these villages was not inclul.lcd within the municipal limits
of the Visakhapatnam Municipality. Most of these respondents own
properties situated within the limits of the two villages but they were
not assessed to property tax under the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra
Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 which was in force until the
introduction of the Act.
They used to pay taxes to the village
Panchayat.
D
In exercise of the powers conferred by the corresponding provision
of the District Municipalities Act. 1920, namely section 4(l)(c), the
Government of Andhra Pradesh declared its intention to include within the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipality the local area comprised
in the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram.
The District
Municipaliti~ Act, 1920 was repealed by section 391(1) of the Act
E
which, as stated earlier, came into force on April 2, 196~. On March
24, 1966 the Government of Andhra Pradesh acting in the exercise of
l
powers conferred by section 3 ( 3) of the Act issued a notification including within the limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality the area
comprised in the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram with
effect from April 1, 1966.
On March 24, 1970 and June 10, 1970 the Municipal Council
declared its intention to levy property tax in the areas newlv included
within the municipal limits.
After considering the objections,
the
Council passed a resolution on August 28, 1970 con.firming the levy
of property tax on buildings and lands situated within the municipal
limits, with effect from October I, 1970.
However, the municipality
issued notices to respondents 1 to 36 demanding property tax from
them not from October 1, 1970 but from April l, 1966, that is to say,
with effect from the date when the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and
Sriharipuram were included within the mnnicipal limits. These notices
would appear to have been issued on the supposition that taxes leviable
under the District Municipalities A.ct, 1920 coull.I be levied
under
clause 12, Schedule IX of the Act, unless the Government directed
o,therwise.
On January 24, 1971 respondents 1 to 36 filed writ petition 442
of 1971 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the State of
F
G
H
>·.
l
i'
,,. ·~
•
~
;
... +
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNIC. v. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, J.) 547
Andhra Pradesh and the Visakhapatnam Municipaliity asking for a
declaration that the levy of property tax on their pro~rties .. for the
period prior to October 1, 1970 was illegal.. The wpt petition was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the view that 1t was competent
to the municipality, udder the District Municipalities Act 1920, to
levy property tax on properties situated in the newly included areas
from April 1, 1966 to October 1, 1970.
Respondents 1 to 36 filed W!it appeal 411 of 1972 . ~!\ainst the
decision of the Single Judge, which was allowed by a Dms1on Bench
of the High Court by its judgment dated June 13,
1972. It hdd
that the provisions contained in'clause 12 of Schedule IX had no apphcation and that it was incompetent to the municipality to impose the
property tax on the newly includeli areas without fo!lowinp; the procedure prescribed by sections 81 and 83 of the Act.
The correctness of
that view is challenged by the Visakhapatnarn Municipality in this
appeal by special leave.
The State of Andhra Pradesh is respondent
No. 37 to the appeal.
The circumstance that whereas the preliminary notification declaring the intention of the State Government to inclnde new areas within
the municipal limits was issued under the District Municipalities Act
J 920, the final notification confirming that intention was issued under
the Act presents no difficulty.
In so far as relevant,
Schedule IX
clause 13 of the Act, read with clause 1, provides that any action
taken under the District Municipalities Act, 1920 by any authority
before the commencement of the Act shall, unless inconsistent with the
Act be d·eemed to have been taken by the authority aompetent to take
such action under the Act.
The preliminary
notification,
though
issued under section 4(1) (c) of the 1920 Act must therefore
be
deemed to have been issued under section 3 (1 )(b) of the Act.
The inclusion of the villages of Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram
within the limits of the Visakhapatnam Municipality is accordingly in
order.
The true question for our consideration is whether the property
tax which conld lawfully be levied unller the District Municipalities
~ct, 192.0 can be levied, after the repeal of that Act, on propertiei
situated Ill the areas included within the municipal limits
after the
constitution of the municipality.
Section 391 ( 1 J of the Act exnressly
repeals the District Municipalities Act, 1920 from which it must
0follow
that. ordinarily, no action can be taken under the Act of 1920 after
A pnl 1. 1966 when the repeal became effective on the coming into
force of the Act.
But counsel for the appellant municipality contends that clause 12
of Schedule IX of the A.ct keeps the repealed enactments alive for tax
purposes and therefore the municioality has authority to impose
the
property tax under the Act of 1920, notwithstanding its repeal bv the
Act.
Schedule IX aopears under the title "Transitional Provisions"
and clause 12 thereof reads thus :
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
"12. Continuance of existing taxes, etc.-Any tax, cess
or fee which was being lawfully levied by or on behalf of any
council at the conunencement of dus Act and which may be
lawfully levied under this Act, shall, uotwithstanding
any
change in the method or manner of assessment or levy of
such tax, cess or fee, continue to be levied by or on behalf
of the council for the year in which this Act is brought into
force, and unless the Government by general or special order
otherwise direct, for subsequent years also."
This provision cannot justify the imposition of tax under the
repealed Act of 1920 on properties situated in the newly included
areas.
In the first place, as the very title of Schedule IX shows, the
provisions contained in the Schedule are of a transitional nature. They
are intended to apply during the period of transition following upon
the repeal of old municipal laws and the introduction of the new law.
Some time must necessarily elapse before a municipality can act under
the new law but taxes have all the same to be imposed and collected
during the interregnum.
The object of clause 12 of Schedule IX is to
authorise the levy of taxes which, on the commencement of the Act,
were levied under the repealed laws.
The material date for this purpose is the date of the commencement of the Act, namely April 1, 1966
and the legality of the exercise of the power conferred by clause 12 is
to be judged in reference to that date. In other words, if any tax, cess
or fee was being lawfully levied by or on behalf of any counc,il on
April 1, 1966 and if it can be lawfully levied under the Act, it can
continue to be levied notwithstanding any change in the method or
manner of assessment or levy of such tax, cess or fee. On April I, 1966
no tax at all was being levied by or on behalf of any council on properties situated in Ramakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram and therefore the
appellant municipality had no occasion or power to direct that the property tax may "continue to be levied" on those properties. "Continuance
of existing taxes,'', after the conunencement of the Act being the theme
of clause 12 and since the property tax was not levied by or on behalf
of any council at the commencement of the Act on the properties
situated in the two villages, clause 12 has no application.
·
Imposition of certain kinds of taxes is an obligatory function
af
municipal councils, under the Act.
Section 81 (1) (a) provides that
. every council shall, by resolution, levy ~ property tax, a profession tax,
a tax on carriages and carts and a tax on animals.
Under section
81 (2) a resolution of a council determining to levy tax shall specify
the rate at which and the date from which the tax shall be levied. The
first proviso to this sub-section requires that "before passing a resolution imposing a tax for the first time" or increasing the rate of an
existing tax, the council shall publish a notice in the prescribed manner
declaring the requisite intention.' The council has further to invite
objections and it is under an obligation to consider the objections
received within the stipulated time.
By section 83, when a council
determines, subject to the provisions of section 81, to levy any tax for
the first time or at a new rate, the Secretary shall forthwith publish a
B
c
1'1111
D
E
I
F
G
H
A
13
c
D
E
F
G
H
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNIC. v. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, !.) 549
notification in the prescribed m~nner specifying the rate at which, the
date from which and the period of levy, if any, for which, such tax
shall be levied.
Section 83 is thus expressly subject to section 81 and
under the latter provJSion no tax can be ill!poseid "for the first time"
unless the proceaure prescribed therein is fo!!owed.
Since the procedure prescnbed by the first proviso t~ section 81 ( 2) was not followed
in regard to the period prior to October 1, 1970 the levy of property
tax on the properties of respondents 1 to 36 for that penod is without
the authority of law and consequently illegal.
lt was urged on behalf of the appellant that the first proviso to section ~ 1 ( £) would apply only when a rax was imposed .. tor the hrst tm1e"
and s,nce me appo11ant was levymg property tax long betore its imposition on the properties of respondents 1 to 36, it was unnecessary
to follow the proceldure prescribed by the proviso.
It is not possible
to accept this submission.
The-MunicipalitY' might have been levying
property tax since long on properties situated within its limits but
until April I, 1966 the villages of Rarnakrishnapuram and Sriharipuram were outside those limits. .Qua the areas !lewly included within
the municipal limits, the tax was being imposed for the first time and
therefor!> it was incumbent on the Municipality to follow the procedure
prescribed by the first proviso to section 81(.2). Residents and taxpayers of th()Se areas, like respondents 1 to 36, never had an opportunity to object to the impos1tion of the tax and that valuable opportunity cannot be denied to them. It is obligatory upon the Mumc1pality not only to invite objections to the proposed tax but also to consilder the objections received by it within tl1e specified period.
Such
period has to be reasonable, not being less than one month.
The
policy of the law is to afford to tl)ose likely to be affected by the imposition of th·" tax a reasonable opportunity to object to the proposed
levy.
According to the appellant, the residents of Ramakrishnapuram
and Sriharipuram hall an OPPQrtunity to -object to the imposition of
the tax when the State Government issued a notification under section
3 ( 1) (b) of the Act declaring its intention to include the two villages
within the limits of the municipality. It is not possible to accept this
submission either.
When the State Government issues a notification
under any of th" clauses of section 3 ( 1), any resident of the local
area concerned or any tax-payer of the municipality can "object to
anything therein contained" meaning thereby, anything contained in
the notification. A notification issued under section 3 ( 1) (b) contains
only the declaration of the Government's intention "to inclnde within
a municipality any local area in the vicinity thereof and defined in such
notification''.
The right of objection woul'd therefore be limited
to
the question whether a particular area should, as proposed, be included
within the m1micipal limits.
It would be premature at that stage to
offer objections to the imposition of any tax because it is only after the
final notification is issued under section 3(3) that the question would
at all arise as regards the imposition of a tax on the newly included
areas.
A notification under section 3 ( 3) has to be followed
by a
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976) 1 S.C.R.
resolution under section 81 (1) if the municipality wants to impqse a
tax, and for the resolution to be effective, the procedure prescribed by
the first proviso to section 81(2) has to be followed.
The appellant
mnnicipality short-circuited this mandatory procedure and
thereby
deprived respondents 1 to 36 of the valuable right of objecting Lo the
imposition of the tax.
Finally, relying on section 3 ( 4) of the Act, learned counsel for
the appellant contended that the inclusion of the two villages withiu
the municipal area attracts of its own force every provision of the Act
with effect from the date on which the final notification is published by
the Government under section 3 ( 3 l. This argument is said to find
support in a decision of this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.(1). Far from supporting the argument, we
consider that the decision shows how a provision like the one contained
in Section 3 ( 4) cannot have the effect contended tor by the appellant
In the Alias Cycle case, section 5(4) of the Punjab Municipality Act,
1911 provided that when any local area was included in a municipality, "this Act and .......... all rules, bye-laws, orders, directions
and powers made, issued or conferre'd under this Act and in force
throughout the whole municipality at the time, shall apply to
such
areas".
The industrial area within which the factory of the Atlas
Cycle was situated was by a notification included within the municipality of Sonepat.
The municipality thereafter purported
to
impose
octroi duty on the goods manufactnroo, by the company without
following the procedure corresponding to that prescribed by sections
81 and 83 of the Act. It was held by this Court that itince section
· 5 ( 4) of the Pun,iab Act dili not, significantly, refer to notifications and
since section 62(10) of the Punjab Act spoke of "notification" for
the imposition of taxes, it was not competent to the municipality to
levy and collect octroi from the company on the strength merely of
the provision contained in sectign 5(4J of the Punjab Act.
In the
instant case, what section 3 ( 4) provides is that once a notification
including any area within a municipality is published under section
3 ( 3) , "The provisions of this Act shall come into force in. . ...... .
any municipality _or part thereof. ....... on the date of publication of
the notification under sub-section (3), if such date is the first day of
April, or in any o.ther case, on the first day of April immediately
succeeding the date of publication of such notification".
Thus. by
section 3 ( 4), once a notification is issued under section 3 ( 3), all the
provisions of the Act come into force.
That means that sections 81
an\'.! 83, which are a part of the Act, would also apply to the entire
Municipal area.
Tt would the!l be obligatory for the municipality to
follow the procedure prescribed in these sections.
Taxes
can be
imposed under the Act only by passing appropriate resolutions under
section 81.
Section 3 ( 4) does not provide that on the inclusion of a
new area within a municipality, the resolutions passed by the municipal council before such inclusion will automatically apply to the new
area.
Plainly, such could not be ,fhe intention of the legislature in
(I) ]19721 I S.C.R. 127.
A
B
I~
c
D i
••
E
F
G
i.
H i
""\'.
A
B
VJSAKHAPATNAM MUNJC, V. K. NUKARAJU (Chandrachud, !.)
551
view of the importance which it has attached to the right of the citizens to object to the imposition of a proposed tax. Though, therefore,
by reason of section 3 ( 4) the provisions of the Act would apply to
the new areas included within a municipality, it is not competent to
the municip.ality to take recourse to the resolution passed for imposing
tax on the old areas for the purpose of levying taxes on new areas.
The procetiure prescribed by sections 81 and 83 must be followed if
a tax is proposed to be levied on the new areas.
For these reasons we confirm the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.