Shambhu Nath Palit v. Corporation of Calcutta and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
Jaswant Singh
Judgment Date: 1978-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shambhu Nath Palit

Respondents

Corporation of Calcutta and Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. R. Chatterjee
• Aman Ghose

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shambhu Nath Palit v. Corporation of Calcutta and Anr. concerns the levy and collection of municipal tax on huts occupied by tenants on lands leased to them. The petitioners challenged the tax, arguing that the huts belong to tenants and should not be taxed as part of the land rate. The Calcutta High Court had directed that, for each parcel of land and hut, the assessment be itemized separately on a consolidated valuation. The Supreme Court held that Section 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 forms a self-contained scheme governing rates, and what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by other provisions. It further held that the Thika Tenancy Act regulates rents, not rates, thus it does not bar recovery under s. 202; the special provision must prevail for rates. Regarding Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court observed that bastis constitute a distinct social class and that a special provision for the owners of bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory, given the social realities. The petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the municipal rate assessment framework under s. 202.

Provisions of Law Cited

Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, s. 202Thika Tenancy ActConstitution of India, Article 14

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Special provision governing rates prevails over other provisions in relation to rates
Basti owners protected by s. 202; Article 14 not violated due to social reality

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that land belongs to him and huts belong to his tenants, while municipal assessment is based on land and huts together. The High Court directed separate assessment for each land-hut unit on a consolidated valuation. Section 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is a self-contained code authorizing the owner to recover from the tenant the portion of the rate attributable to the hut; the Thika Tenancy Act fixes rents and does not bar recovery under s. 202; Article 14 cannot invalidate a special provision dealing with bastis given the social realities and protection under s. 202.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Thika Tenancy Act concerns rents and does not preclude recovery under s. 202; the issue of discrimination under Article 14 is not preferred to override the statutory framework for rates.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B ## c D E F 606 SHAMBHU NATH PALIT _v._ CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND ANR. _January_ 24. 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] _Calcutta J\funicipal Act,_ 1951, _S._ 202~Whether _the pro\·isions_ _of_ _Thika_ _Tenancy_ _Act_ _a bar to the recovery_ _fro111_ _tile tenant_ _by_ _a landlord,_ _of_ _the rates_ _levied and collected by the Corporation_ _as_ _an_ _owner_ _11/s_ 202 _of_ _the Municipal_ _Act._ The petitioners challenged the levy and collection of the municipal tax from them as landlords in respect of the huts constructed and occupied by their tenants on the lands leased to the latter. The Calcutta High Court, taking the view that S. 202 of the· Municipal Act, 1951 provided for collection by the owner of the land of so much of the rate a_s is attributable to the hut which belongs not to the owner but to the tenant, directed, that in regard to each bit of land and hut thereon, there will be particularisation of the assessment separately on the consolidated valuation. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD : 1. S. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is more or less a self-contained code with the result that what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by the existence of any other provision. 2. "fhe ·Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of the petitioner in recovering what is permissible u/s 202 of the Municipal Act. Thika Tenancy Act deals with rents while s. 202 deals with rates. The special provision must prevail so far as the rates are concerned. 3. A special provision dealing with owners of bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, when their position is protected by s. 202 of the Municipal Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5097 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 24-9-75 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 154 of 1971. _N._ _R. Chatterjee_ and _Am/an Ghose_ for the Petitioner. G The Order of the Court was delivered by # ' _(_ _(_ H KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel Mr. Chatterjee on two grievances of his clinet. According to him, the land belongs to the petitioner, the huts belong to his tenants, but the municipal assessment is based upon valuation of the land and the huts together. This grievance is taken care of in two ways. The High Court had directed that in regard to each bit of land and hut thereon, there will be particularisation of the assessment separately. on the consolidated valuation. Secondly, there is also provision in s. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal ) ... } s. N. P.lLIT _v._ CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA _(Krishna Iyer,_ _!.)_ 60 _T_ Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for collection by the A owner of the land of so such of the rate as is attributable to the hut which belongsjlot to the owner but to the tenant, if we may pllt it lOQSe!y that way. The details have been spelt out in s. 202 of the Act. We consider s. 202 as more or jess a self-contained code with the result that what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by the existence of any other provision. Counsel's second grievence is that the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act stand in the way of the petitioner collecting from his tenant any amount in excess of the rent fixed under the Act. This grievance also has no substance because the Thika Tenancy Act deals _B_ with rents wh;le s. 202 deals with rates. The special provision must prevail so far as the rates are concerned and the petitioner is not pre### vented from collecting sums due under s. 202 in the sha2e of rates. c The Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of thy petitioner in recovering what is permissible under s. 202 of the Act. .Nor are we able to appreciate counsel's contention that Art 14 of the Constitution is violated. Bastis-horrid hovels, which blot the human-scape of India, still survive in our socialistic pattern-stand as a separate category although as an ugly but inescapable social reality. D It is true that the most unfortunate section of the society in Calcutta City dwell in these bastis except those who, unable to afford the luxury even of these bastis, have to seek she,Jter on the pavements. So far as Art. 14 is concerned, the bastis and the dwellers of bastis stand in a tearfully separate class by themselves and a special provision dealing with owners of bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory. If ever there were any discrimination it Js against the human condition, rather E the inhuman condition, of these whom dire necessity drives to occupy these hutments. So far as the_ owners are concerned their position is protected by s. 202 and there cannot be any complaint except abstract, theoretical and imaginary ones, that there is discrimination against them. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. F S.R. _Petition dismissed._ )