http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/12/1972

BENCH:

MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

BENCH:

MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

MUKHERJEA, B.K.

CITATION:

1973 AIR 674 1973 SCR (3) 169

1973 SCC (1) 579

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1977 SC2134 (17)

ACT:

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-S. 66 and 67-Whether NDMC can

include a building retrospectively in the assessment list by

amendment.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant is the owner of No. 5 Parliament Street, New

Delhi. The building was not entered in the assessment list

to be operative during April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959,

although it was occupied after completion on July 1, 1968.

Under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the NDMC by a

resolution dated November 20, 1959 amended the assessment

list which was operative for the period April 1, 1959, to

March 31, 1960 and imposed house tax on the building for the

year 1959-60.

Section 67 of the Act provides that the Committee may at any

time amend the list after giving notice to any person

affected by the amendment and Sub. s. (2) provides that any

interested person may tender his objection and he shall be

given an opportunity of being heard etc.

The only question that arose for decision before this Court

was whether the Respondent was entitled to include the

building in the assessment list, which was operative for the

period April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : (i) The assessment list for the year commencing from

April 1, 1959, had to be settled by March 31, 1959, at the

latest. This list was liable to be amended under S. 67 even

after March 31, 1959, on any of the grounds mentioned in

that Section. Sec. 66 does not say that the amendment of

the assessment list should have been made before March 31,

1959. The expression "subject to such amendment as may

thereafter be duly made" in Sec. 66 would indicate that the

amendment of the list could be made even after March 31,

1959 as Sec. 67 provides for amendment of the list "at any

time." [193BC]

It is not necessary that the assessment list should have

been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that the

Municipal Committee may impose house tax on the building for

the period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. An

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

amendment of the list under S. 67 was permissible on any of

the grounds mentioned in the Section even after March 31,

1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would have

no meaning. [193EF]

(ii) Further, the meaning of the expression "at any time"

will depend upon the context in which the expression occurs.

The expression "at any time" occurring in S. 67 read with

the word "thereafter" in S. 66 can only lead to the

conclusion that the amendment of the list in question was

permissible even after March 31, 1959. [195A]

Central Bank of India Ltd. Amritsar v. The Hartford Fire

Insurance Co. Ltd. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288; Exparte Norris

in Re Salder 17 Q.B.D. 728 referred to

190

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1315 of

1972.

Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated

October 28, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in

Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1967.

M. C. Chagla, S. K. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the

appellant.

D. D. Chawla, H. K. Puri and S. K. Dhingra, for the

respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MATHEW, J. The appellant, Punjab National Bank Limited, is

the owner of a building bearing municipal No. 5, Parliament

Street, New Delhi. After completion of its construction, it

was ,occupied on July 1, 1958. The building was not entered

in the assessment list which was to be operative during the

period from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959. On September

4, 1959, the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the respondent

here, purporting to act under s. 67 of the Punjab Municipal

Act, 191 1, hereinafter referred to as the Act, issued a

notice to the appellant stating

"This is to inform you that your building mentioned at the

back of this letter has been completed and is in fact

occupied from 1-7-1958 and ought to be assessed to House tax

by amending the list for 1959-60 under section 67 of the

Municipal Act, 1911 and this Committee has, vide resolution

No. 30 dated 10-7-1959 proposed to amend the list for the

year 1959-60 by inserting the said property on an annual

value as given at the back of this letter.

"It is further proposed that the tax will take effect from

1-4-1959.

"Notice is hereby given to you under section 67 of the P. M.

Act that the Committee will consider the question of the

amendment of the list and will hear objections in Meeting

Room on 20th day of, November, 1959 at 10.00 A.M."

The appellant objected to the amendment of the list and levy

of the tax for the period in question but the objection was

over-ruled, and the respondent passed a resolution

confirming the proposed assessment on December 21, 1959.

Thereafter the respondent sent a bill for the tax for the

period. This was followed by a notice of demand.

191

The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction

restraining the respondent from enforcing the demand on the

ground that the respondent had no jurisdiction to include

the building in the assessment list. The trial Court

decreed the suit. The District Judge, on appeal, agreed

with the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

The second appeal filed against his decision was dismissed

by a learned single judge of the High Court.. An appeal was

filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge which

came up before a Division Bench of the Court which referred

the case to a larger Bench. The Bench, by a majority, set

aside the order of the single Judge and dismissed the suit.

This appeal, by certificate, is from this decision.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal

is whether the respondent was entitled to include the

building in the .assessment list which was operative for the

period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960, by amending it

on November 20, 1959, and impose house tax on the building

for the year 1959-60.

Chapter V of the Act deals with taxation. Section 61

specifies the taxes which might be imposed by a Municipal

Committee and one such tax is a tax payable by an owner of

building and land. Section 62 lays down the procedure for

imposition of the. taxes mentioned in s. 61. Section 63

deals with the procedure for assessment of tax on immovable

property. It provides that the committee shall cause an

assessment list of all buildings and lands on which any tax

is imposed to be prepared. Section 64 provides that when

the assessment list has be-en completed, the committee shall

give public notice thereof. Section 65 provides that the

Committee shall, at the time of the publication of the

assessment list, give public notice of a time not less than

one month thereafter, when it will proceed to revise the

valuation, and assessment, and in all cases in which

property is for the first time assessed. or the assessment

thereof is enhanced, it shall also give notice to the owner

or occupier of the property. The Section further requires

that all objections to the valuation shall be made before or

at the time fixed in the notice. Section 66 provides for

the settlement of the list and it states :

"66. Settlement of list-(i) After the objections have been

enquired into and the persons making them have been allowed

an opportunity of being heard either in person or by

authorized agent as they may think fit, and the revision of

the valuation and assessment has been completed, the

amendments made in the list shall be .authenticated by the

signatures of not less than two members of the Committee who

shall at the same time certify that no valid objections has

been made to the

192

valuation and assessment contained in the list, except in

the case in which amendments have been entered therein, and

subject to such amendments as may thereafter be duly made,

the tax so assessed shall be deemed to be the tax for the

year commencing on the first day of January or first day of

April next ensuing as the Committee may determine, or in the

case of a tax then imposed for the first time for the period

between the date on which the tax comes into force and such

first day of January or April, as the case may be.

"(2) The list when amended under this section shall be

deposited in the committee's office and shall there be open

during office hours to all owners or occupiers of property

comprised therein or the authorized agents of such persons,

and a public notice that it is so open shall forthwith be

published."

Section 67 which provides for further amendment of the

assessment list states :

" (1) The Committee may at any time amend the list by

inserting the name of any person whose name ought to have

been or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any property

which ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

altering the assessment on any property which has been

erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or

mistake, whether on the part of the committee or of the

assessee, or in the case of the tax payable by the occupier

by a change in the tenancy, after giving notice to any

person affected by the amendment, of a time, not less than

one month from the date of service, at which the amendment

is to be made.

(2) Any person interested in any such amendment may tender

his objection to the committee in writing before the time

fixed in the notice, or orally or in writing at that time,

and shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard in

support of the same in person, or by authorized agent, as he

may think fit."

Section 68 confers a discretion on the committee to prepare

for the whole or any part of the municipality a new

assessment list every year.

The majority was of the view that the amendment of the

assessment Est, though made on November 20, 1959, was opera-

tive from April 1, 1959, and that the building, was liable

to be taxed for the year which commenced from April 1, 1959,

and ended on March 31, 1960. The majority overruled the

argument

193

of the appellant that the municipal committee had no

jurisdiction to amend the assessment list after the list was

finalised on March 31, 1959.

It was contended for the appellant that when once the

assessment list was finalized in accordance with the

provisions of the Act, the committee had no jurisdiction to

amend it thereafter.

We think that the conclusion of the majority is correct.

The assessment list for the year commencing from April 1,

1959, had to be settled by March 31, 1959 at the latest;

this list was liable to be amended under s. 67 even after

March 31, 1959, on any of the grounds mentioned in that

section. Section 66 does not say that the amendment of the

assessment list should have been made before March 31,.

1959. The expression "subject to such amendment as may

thereafter be duly made" in s. 66 would indicate that the

amendment 'of the list could be made even after March 31,

1959, as s. 67 provides for amendment of the list "at

anytime'. And when the list was so amended, it shall be

deemed to have been in force for the year which commenced

from April 1, 1959, an( ended on March 31, 1960, and the tax

assessed therein shall be deemed to be the tax for the

financial year commencing from April 1, 1959. In other

words, it was not necessary that the assessment list should

have been amended before March 31, 1959, in order that the

municipal committee may impose house tax on the building for

the period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. An

amendment of the list under s. 67 was permissible on any of

the grounds mentioned in the section even after March

'31, .1959, as otherwise, the expression "at any time" would

have no meaning. The words "subject to such amendments as

may thereafter be duly made" in s. 66 postulate that a list

finalized before 1st January or 1st April is Liable to be

amended thereafter under s. 67. The building was certainly

liable to be included in the assessment list which was

finalized on March 31. 1959, but by some mistake it was not

so included. The list was, therefore, liable to be amended

under s. 67. That was done. When the list was amended, the

tax assessed for the building shall be deemed to be the tax

for it in the year which commenced from April 1, 1959, and

ended on March 31, 1960.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Chagla that the

expression "at any time" in s. 67 means that the amendment

of the assessment list could have been made only before

March 31, 1959. We think that the purpose behind s. 67 was

to enable the Municipal Committee to amend, the assessment

list at any time on any of the grounds mentioned therein.

Counsel referred to the decision in Ex-parte Norris. In Re

Salder(1) in support of his

(1) 17 Q.B.D. 728.

14-L631Sup.CI/73

194

contention that the words "at any time" in s. 67 must

receive a narrow construction as otherwise there will be no

limit of time for the amendment of the list. What happened

in that case was that a secured creditor, having stated in

his proof the value at which lie assessed his security, the

trustee gave him written notice that "it was his intention"

to redeem the security so valued, and thereupon applied for

and received from the Board of Trade the amount required for

such redemption. Before any further step was taken the

creditor applied to amend his valuation and proof, the

security having increased in value. The Court held that no-

thing had occurred to prevent the amendment from being

allowed. In so holding the Court had to consider the

argument based on rule 13 of the 2nd Schedule to the

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which provided that a creditor may

amend the valuation and proof "at any time". Lord Esher M.

R., after stating that the Court has no right to diminish

the full force of the words "at any time" unless from the

Act itself or the Rules it is possible to find some neces-

sary implication to limit the force of the words, observed

"That they are to have some limitation cannot, I think, be

doubted; it cannot be that the right is to go on for ever.

One necessary implication, at all events, I think is, that

the right is at an end, if the trustee acting upon the

valuation put upon the security by the creditor, has

exercised the right given to him by the 12th rule, to redeem

the security "on payment to the creditor of the assessed

value". It is impossible to suppose that, after the trustee

has paid the amount of the valuation, and has thus on behalf

of the general body of the creditors become the purchaser of

the security, the creditor can undo all that."

The respondent on the other hand submitted that the words

"at any time" in s. 67 must be given the widest amplitude as

the purpose of s. 67 is to rectify any omission in the list

occasioned by the mistake, fraud, accident of the assessee

or the Committee as the case may be, and reliance was placed

on the decision in the Central Bank of India Ltd., Amritsar

v. The Hardford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.(") where this Court

had to construe the expression "This insurance may be

terminated at any time at the request of the insured"

occurring in an insurance policy; it was held that the words

"at any time" can only mean "at any time the party concerned

likes".

We do not think that any universal rule can he laid down as

to the meaning of the expression "at any time". It all

depends

(1) A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1288.

195

upon the context in which the expression occurs. We think

that the expression "at any time" occurring in s. 67, when

read in conjunction with the word "thereafter" in s. 66 can

only lead to the conclusion that the amendment of the list

in question was permissible even after March 31, 1959.

The appellant contended that the building was not included

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

in the list which was operative for the period which

commenced from April 1, 1959 and ended on March 31, 1960.

We have perused the assessment list produced before us and

we are satisfied that the amendment was made by inserting

the building in the list which was finalised on March 31,

1959, and which was operative for the period which commenced

from 1st April, 1959 and ended on 31st March, 1960.

We think that the majority was right in their conclusion and

we discuss the appeal but, in the circumstances, make no

order as to costs.

S.C. Appeal

dismissed.

196