With
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 285(1) - House tax - Gram Panchayat sought to levy house tax on the appellant - Same challenged on ground that Section 285(1) precluded Gram Panchayat from laying house tax on its building - Union of India executed power of attorney in favour of appellant for setting up of steel plant and utilise acquired land for the Project - Appellant utilised the land for said purpose and constructed building thereon - Hence, appellant is owner of said building and liable to house tax. [Para 3] Cases Referred :- Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (4) SCC 458.ORDER
1. The appellant questions the correctness of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad. The High Court thereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The Jayantipuram Gram Panchayat sought to levy house tax on the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition to challenge the demand contending that Article 285(1) of the constitution precluded the Gram Panchayat from levying house tax on its buildings. The High Court held that the contention was unjustified. The High Court was right. The view taken by it has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1999. (4) SCC 458). 2. It was also contended by the appellant before the High Court that, assuming that the land upon which the buildings stood belonged to the Union of India, it did not follow there from that the structures constructed thereon would also become the property of the Union of India. The High Court found no material before it which established that the appellant had acted for the Union of India in constructing the buildings and that it treated the buildings as belonging to the Union of India. 3. We have before us the power of attorney dated 26th October, 1983. The power of attorney is executed on behalf of the Union of India in favour of the appellant in respect of the land. Its recitals state that the power of attorney was being given, inter alia, "for setting up of the steel plant and in utilisation of the acquired land for the project". The substantive portion of the power of attorney also states that it is given so that the appellant may "utilise the acquired lands for the project and related purposes incidental thereto". It is clear, therefore, that it is the appellant who has utilised the land for the purposes of the project and to that end has constructed buildings thereon. The buildings thereon are, therefore, of the ownership of the appellant and liable to the house tax. 4. The civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. .