Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU NATH PALIT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/01/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1978 AIR 768 1978 SCR (2) 606
1978 SCC (1) 620
ACT:
Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, S. 202--Whether the provisions
of Thika Tenancy Act a bar to the recovery from the tenant
by a landlord, of the rates levied and collected by the
Corporation as an owner u/s 202 of the Municipal Act.
HEADNOTE:
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
as 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.The 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.
JUDGMENT:
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 Amlan Ghose for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel Mr. Chatterjee on two
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 win be particu-
larisation of the assessment separately on the consolidated
valuation. Secondly. there is also provision in s. 202 of
the Calcutta, Municipal
607
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) for
collection by the owner of the land of so such of the rate
as is attributable to the hut which belongs not to the owner
but to the tenant, if we may put it loosely that way. The
details have been spelt out in s. 202 of the Act. ’We
consider s. 202 as 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.
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 with rents while 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 shape of
rates. The Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of
the 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. 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 shelter 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 is against the human condition,
rather 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.
S.R. Petition dismissed.
608