Sri Vanamamalai Mutt Vs The Panchayat Rajakkalamangalam and Others

Madras High Court 18 Dec 1973 (1973) 12 MAD CK 0001
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

K. Veeraswami, C.J

Acts Referred
  • Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Section 119, 119(3)

Judgement Text

Translate:

K. Veeraswami, C. J.

1. On the ground of excessive delegation, Section 119(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is attacked. There are two taxes designated as

Agricultural Development Tax and Village Development Tax, with which we are concerned. Both the taxes have been raised for the specific

purpose of laying roads in the village. Section 119 authorises a village Panchayat to levy such taxes. Sub-section (3) says that, subject to such

restrictions and conditions, if any, as the case may be, the Panchayat may levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose. This power is, of

course, subject to rules to be made and with the sanction of the Inspector. While granting such sanction, the Inspector may also prescribe

restrictions and conditions. By reason of the rule-making power, rules have been made by G.O. Ms. No. 184, L.A. dated 1st January, 1962. Rule

1 (b) mentions the specific purposes for which the taxes can be levied. One of them is the construction of a road or bridge or culvert in the village.

2. The two points urged for the appellant are:

(1) that the fixation of rates has been left to the Panchayat which amounted to excessive delegation; and

(2) that the tax is not related to agricultural purposes.

As to the second point, there is no argument addressed to us that the tax is in the nature of fee and, that being so, the contention has no merit. The

tax raised may be devoted to any purpose of a public character.

3. As to the first contention, under the District Municipalities Act and also the City Corporation Act, though the Legislature has authorised the levy

of property tax, the rate of tax has been left to the Municipal Council. No doubt, the Legislature may choose to impose an upper limit for rates. But

that is not, in our opinion, a condition precedent for the validity of the power of the Municipal Council or Panchayat to fix the rate. The rate of tax

fixed in these cases is also not excessive and it appears to be reasonable.

4. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100 in each case.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More