(1) 1. This civil revision petition is preferred by a large number of rate - payers within the vijayawada municipal corporation, against a common order passed by the learned subordinate judge, vijayawada, rejecting the appeals sought to be preferred by them against the order of the municipal corporation, revising the property tax in respect of their respective houses. The municipal commissioner passed orders revising the property tax, in march, 1984. The appeals were rejected by the learned subordinate judge holding that they are not maintainable.
(2) Vijayawada was formerly a municipality governed by the andhra pradesh municipalities act, 1965. By andhra pradesh act 23 of 1981, called the "vijayawada municipal corporation act, 1981", the local area included in the vijayawada municipality was constituted the city of vijayawada and a municipal corporation was seemed to have been established for the said city, by name "vijayawada municipal corporation", with effect on and from the date of commencement of the said act, viz. , 6th june, 1981. Sec. 6 of the act declares that, with effect from the commencement of the said act but subject to the provisions of sub - sections (2) and (3) thereof, the andhra pradesh municipalities act shall cease to apply to the local area comprised within the city of vijayawada. Sub - ss. (2) and (3) are in the nature of saving clauses. It would be appropriate to set them out in full: - " (2) such ceaser shall not affect - (a) the previous operation of the andhra predesh municipalities act, 1965 (act 6 of 1965) in respect of the local area comprised within the city of vijayawada (b) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the andhra pradesh municipalities act, 1965 (act 6 of 1965) , or (c) any investigation legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such penalty forfeiture or punishment and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this act had not been passed. (3) notwithstanding anything contained in sub - s. (1) , all notifications rules bye - laws regulations orders directions and powers made issued or conferred under the andhra pradesh municipalities act, 1965 (act 6 of 1965) and in force at the commencement of this act shall so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, continue to be in force in the iocal area comprised within the city of vijayawada until they are replaced by the notifications rules bye laws regulations orders directions and powers to be made or issued or conferred under this act. "
(3) Sub - s. (l) of s. 7 extends all the provisions of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955 (act ii of 1956) , except certain specified provisions to the vijayawada municipal corporation. Since s. 7 is highly relevant for resolving the controversy arising herein, it 'is necessary to set out the said section in full: - ' "7. Application of the provisions of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955, to the corporation - (1) save as otherwise expressly provided herein all the provision of hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955 (act ii of 1956) (hereinafter in this section called the said act") including the provisions relating to the levy and collection of any tax or fee except chapter v, ss. 380, 3b1, 382, 383, 384, 385 and 387 in chapter xi and chapter xiii thereof, are hereby extended to and shall apply mutatis mutandis to the corporation and the said act shall, in relation to the corporation be read and construed as if the provisions of the said act had formed part of this act. (2) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the provisions of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955 (act ii of 1956) , to the corporation, the government may, by notification in andhra pradesh gazette, make such adaptations and modifications of the said act and the rules and bye - laws made thereunder, whether by way of repealina amending or suspending any provision thereof, as may be necessary or expedient and thereupon the said act and the rules made thereunder shall apply to the corporation subject to the adaptations and modifications so made (3) notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under sub - s. (2) for the adaptation of the provisions of the said act, or the rules made thereunder, any court, tribunal, or authority required or empowered to enforce these provisions may, for the purpose of facilitating their application to the corporation, construe these provisions in such manner, without affecting the substance, as may be recessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority. "
(4) Sec. 8 provides for certain transitional provisions. Sub - s. (l) says that, all property and other rights and interest vesting in the vijayawada municipal council, shall devolve upon the corporation. Sub - sec. (2) says that, all arrears of taxes or other payment of whatever kind, due to the council, can be recovered by the corporation as if they are due under the provisions of the act. According to sub - sec. (3) , all taxes, fees and duties, which immediately before the commencement of the act were being levied by the council, shall be deemed to have been levied by the corporation, and shall continue to be in force until they are revised or modified. Sub - sections (4) and (5) save the proceedings taken by, or against the council, and sub - s. (6) provides for continuance of the employees. It is not necessary to notice the other provisions, of the act, except to say that, while s. 10 confers upon the state govt. , the power to remove difficulties, sec. Ll confers rule - making power upon the state govt. To carry out the purposes of the act.
(5) A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the hyderabad municipal corporation act, except certain specified provisions, has been extended to, and made applicable to the vijayawada municipal corporation. All the provisions in the hyderabad act shall be read and construed as if they are contained in the vijayawada municipal corporation act, 1981. Sec. 7 (l) expressly refers to the applicability of the provisions "relating to the levy and collection of any tax or fee". The levy of property tax under the hyderabad municipal corporation act is provided by chapter viii, which not only prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of levy and revision of taxes, but also for appeal against valuation and taxes. Sec. 282 provides for an appeal against any rateable value, or tax fixed or charged under the said act, to the 'judge'. The expression 'judge' is defined in cl. (27) of sec. 2, to mean, in the cities of hyderabad and secunderabad, "the chief judge, court of small causes, hyderabad, and shall include a sub judge to whom such judge may transfer, in accordance with the provisions of this act, an application or appeal for disposal". Unfortunately, the vijayawada municipal corporation act does not amend either sec. 282, or the definition of the expression 'judge' in sec. 2 (27) of the hyderabad act. The act, of course, has, in sub - sec. (2) of s. 7, expressly empowered the government of andhra pradesh to make such adaptations and modifications of the hyderabad act and the rules and bye - laws made thereunder as may be necessary or expedient in their application to the vijayawada municipal corporation; but again, unfortunately, the govt. , has not come forward with any such adaptation. It goes without saying that sub - sec. (2) of 5. 7 is put in precisely to meet unprovided for situations arising in the matter of application of the hyderabad act to the vijayawada municipal corporation. It, therefore, expressly invests the government with the power to make appropriate adaptations or modifications in the hyderabad act in its application to the vijayawada municipal corporation. Had the govt. Made any such adaptations or modifications, the present difficulty would not have arisen. Now, the precise problem/difficulty is this: according to sec. 282 of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, an appeal against valuation or revision of tax, lies to the "chief judge, court of small causes, hyderabad". There is no court of small causes for vijayawada, nor is there any "chief judge, court of small causes" for vijayawada. Obviously, the act could not have intended that all the rate - payers of vijayawada should come to hyderabad and file appeals before the chief judge, court of small causes, hyderabad. Now, within the limits of vijayawada municipal corporation, the subordinate judge is the highest judge exercising small cause jurisdiction. The petitioners, therefore, filed their appeals before the learned subordinate judge vijayawada; but, he has rejected the appeals on the ground that he is not the 'judge within the meaning of sec. 282 of the hyderabad act. Of course, he has also assigned another ground for rejecting the appeals, viz. , that it is open to the petitioners to prefer appeals to the appellate commissioner, as provided by rule 22 in schedule ii to the a. P. Municipalities act, 1965 - an argument espoused by sri d. Venkata reddy, the learned counsel for the corporation. In my opinion, this additional ground given by the learned subordinate judge is untenable in law. The andhra pradesh municipalities act ceased to apply to the local area comprised in vijayawada municipal council, with effect from 6th june, 1981. The provision for appeal is contained in the a. P. Municipalities act itself; schedule ii is part of the act. None of the provisions of the a. P. Municipalities act are saved, or continued by the vijayawada municipal corporation act. Sub - s. (3) of s. 6 only saves the notifications, rules, bye - laws, regulations, order, directions and powers made, issued or conferred under the andhra pradesh municipalities act, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the vijayawada municipal corporation act. Sub - s. (3) of s. 6 is not effective to save or continue r. 22 in schedule ii to the a. P. Municipalities act. The order revising the tax in this case has been passed long after the a. P. Municipalities act ceased to apply, and long after the vijayawada municipal corporation act came into force. The revision of taxes must, therefore, be deemed to have been effected under the vijayawada municipal corporation act, read with the hyderabad municipal corporation act. As noted herein before, the provisions of the hyderabad act relating to levy and collection of any tax have been specifically extended to, and made applicable to the vijayawada municipal corporation as if they are contained in the vijayawada municipal corporation act. If so, the appeal must be preferred only in accordance with the provisions of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, i. E. , under s. 282. But then, the difficulty pointed out above, comes to the force, viz. , that, there is no chief judge, court of small causes, for vijayawada. Fortunately, sub - s. (3) of s. 7 of the vijayawada municipal corporation act comes to the rescue. It provides that, even though no provision has been made under sub - s. (2) of s. 7 for adaptation of the hyderabad act, or the rules made thereunder, in the manner of their application to the vijayawada municipal corporation, "any court, tribunal or authority required or empowered to enforce these provisions may, for the purpose of facilitating their application to the corporation, construe these provisions in such manner, without affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority". This provision was evidently made by way of abundant caution to provide for situations which may not be provided, or which may be insufficiently provided by the adaptations or modifications made under sub - s. (2) of s. 7. The legislature, obviously, recognised that the government may no make adaptations and modifications providing for all situations that may arise, and to avoid a hiatus or a deadlock, sub - s. (3) which i find to be of an unusual character was made. There is no reason why the court should not avail of the said express provision - and remove the creases, diffcui - ties and deadlocks, if any, arising in the matter of application of the hyderabad act to the vijayawada municipal corporation the only manner, in my opinion, in which the provisions of the hyderabad act should be continues in their application to the substance, if so construe the definition of 'judge' contained in s. 2 (27) of the hyderabad act, as referring to the highest judge exercising small cause jurisdiction within the limits of the vijayawada municipal corporation, which would mean the subordinate judge, vijayawada. I may also note by way of analogy, that under the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 while an appeal in the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabad lies to the chief judge, court of small causes, hyderabad, in the districts the appeal lies to the concerned subordinate judge. Even the definition of the expression 'judge in s. 2 (27) of the hyderabad act, recognizes the appeal being made over by the chief judge, court of small causes, for disposal to the subordinate judge. The judge corresponding to chief judge, court of small causes hyderabad, in vijayawada is the subordinate judge, though his pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter of small cause suit may be lower. I, therefore, hold that the learned subordinate judge was not right in rejecting the appeals as not maintainable.
(6) The civil revision petition is, accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The appeals are held to be maintainable. The learned subordinate judge shall now proceed to process the appeal according to law, treating them as maintainable under section 282 of the hyderabad municipal corporation act, read with sec. 7 of the vijayawada municipal corporation act, 1981, as explained hereinbefore.
(7) Civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. C. R. P. Allowed