Gramsabha Tarori vs F. Onkar Singh and Sons and Others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a defendant''s second appeal against the decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, confirming on appeal the order of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs'' suit.

The respondents, who are carrying on the business of the sale and purchase of grain in village Doda in District Karnal, brought a suit against the Gram Sabha, Tarori, Tehsil and District Karnal, appellant, challenging that the Arhat tax imposed on them was illegal and they sought a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from realising or collecting the same.

A number of pleas were raised by the appellant in defence of this suit, but in the present appeal we are only concerned with one of them, which gave rise to issue No. 6, which is in the following terms:

Whether the tax levied is illegal void and ineffective for the reasons given in para. 3 of the plaint ?

Both the Courts below held this tax to be illegal, decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed by the Gram Sabha.

It is common ground that this tax was imposed in October 1958 by the Gram Sabha u/s 82 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Act 4 of 1953), the relevant portion of which, as it stood then, was as under.-

S. 82. * * * *

(2) A Gram Panchayat may with the previous sanction of Government levy any other tax, which the Legislature of the State has power to impose in the State under the Constitution of India.

******

The only point for determination in the present case is whether the previous sanction of the Government was obtained by the appellant before imposing this tax in October, 1958. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this sanction had been duly obtained, while the respondents'' case is that no such previous sanction was acquired.

This question would admittedly, depend on the interpretation of the letter dated 7/10th September 1956 (Exhibit D. 16) issued by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health and Local Government Departments, to the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, it runs thus-

Reference your memorandum No. CC-XI-9 56/40161, dated the 29th May, 1956, on the subject noted above. 2. Ahrat tax is leviable u/s 82 of the Gram Panchayat Act 1952, with the previous sanction of Government. In this respect Government consider that you should select fifty Gram Pahchayats which may impose Ahrat tax on an experimental basis for the present. Each individual proposal should however, be examined on its merits. This wilt depend on the total population of the village, the dealers who are liable to be assessed to this tax, the existence or otherwise of factions or groups amongst Panches, based on trade, profession or caste, the estimated income from each levy and the needs of the village and the necessity of raising further finance by this levy. A report about the results as achieved in this respect should be submitted to Government after six months from the date of its actual imposition.

A perusal of the same would show that this letter had merely authorised the Director of Panchayats to select fifty Panchayats in the State, which had to levy Ahrat tax on experimental basis. The proposal regarding the imposition of this tax by each Panchayat had to be examined on its merits after taking into consideration the total population of the village, the dealers who were liable to be assessed to this tax, the existence or otherwise of factions or groups amongst panches, based on trade profession or caste, the estimated income from each levy and the needs of the village and the necessity of raising further finance by this levy. The underlying idea was that the Director of Panchayats had to select these fifty Panchayats and the proposal with regard to the imposition of this tax in respect of each Panchayat had to be examined by him in the light of the guiding principles laid down in this letter. After that, the same had to be sent to the Government for the grant of necessary sanction. The Government would then have applied its mind to each individual case and then given or withheld the sanction asked for. The question of sending the report, about the results achieved would arise only after the necessary sanction was given by the Government and the Panchayat concerned had levied the tax. This letter itself does not accord or purport to accord any sanction as contemplated by section 82(2) of Act 4 of 1953. Since the tax in question was levied by the appellant on 20th October, 1958 without any previous sanction having been obtained, therefore, such an imposition was not in accordance with law. Reference was then made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the letter dated 2nd May, 1959 (Exhibit D. 5) issued by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health and Local Government Departments, to the Director of Panchayats, Chandigarh, which says-

Reference your memorandum No. l/D/59/16393, dated the 21st February, 1959, on the subject noted above 2. Sanction of the Governor of Punjab, is accorded u/s 82(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, for the levy of Arhat Tax by the Gram Pnnchayat Thatti Bhai, District Ferozepur, as well as all the other Panchayats in the erstwhile Punjab area.

In the first place, this letter was issued after the levy of the impugned tax, and therefore, it cannot be termed as "previous sanction" as envisaged by section 32(2) of the 1953 Act. Secondly, this omnibus sanction is no sanction in the eve of law. As a matter of fact, the case of each Panchayat which had asked for the imposition of the tax, should have been considered by the Government and then sanction accorded or withheld, that has not been done in the present case. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the finding given, by the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 6. No other question was argued before me.

The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.