108-NLR-NLR-V-56-E.-NAVARATNAM-Appellant-and-VILLAGE-COMMITTE-OF-KANDUKARA-IHALA-KORALE-Resp.pdf
4.10
Nnvaralnam v. Village Committee of Kandukara Jhala Kornle
1954
Present: Swan J.E. NAVARATNAM, Appellant, and VILLAGE COMMITTEE OFKANDUKARA IHALA KORALE, Respondents.A. C. 5—G. R. Gampola, 8,774
Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. 198)—Section 45 (3) (6)—Acreage tax—" I.ondwhich is situated outside a built-up locality
The passing of a resolution declaring a particular area to be a built-up localityis not a condition precedent to the imposition of an acreage tax under seel ion 45(3) (b) of the Village Communities Ordinance.
• 11 Cox 362.
SWAN J.—Navaralnain u. Village Committee oj Kanduhara Ihala Kortile 431
./^LpPEAL from a judgment of the Court of -Requests, Gampola.
H. V. Perera, Q. G., with A. J. M.Canjemanaden, for the plaintiff appellant.
Cyril E. S. Perera, Q.C., with S. W. Jayasuriya .and Joseph Nalliah, fortho defendants respondents.
Cur. nth', rnlt.
January 13, 1954. Swan J.—
The appellant is a resident co-owner of a plantation in Pussollawacalled Poragollawatte Estate situated within the administrative limitsofthe Village CommitteeofKandukaraIhalaKoralo. His complaint is thatho was illegally called upon to pay an acreage tax of 50 cents per aero on hisholding. Ho claimed in this action a refund of Its. IS – 43 which accordingto him was tho unlawful levy for the yoar 1949 and the first two quartersof 1950 on tho ground that ho had paid the amount under protest.
Tho caso went to trial on the following issues :—
Has the defendant failed to declare the “ built up” localities as
provided for in section 45 (3) (a) of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance ?
Has the defendant failed to comply with tho provisions of tho
Village Communities Ordinance and/or the rules framedthereunder in imposing and levying the Acreage Tax ?
1 las the defendant imposed and levied a Land Tax in the form of an
Acreage Tax only ?
Tf issues 1, 2 and 3 or any one or more of those are answered in
the affirmative is the imposition and levy of the Acreage Tax onPeragollawatta illegal ?
Has the defendant failed to givo tho notice proscribed by law in
respect of the increase of Acreage Tax ?
(<>) If issue No. 5 is answered in the affirmative is the imposition and lovyof such increase illegal ?
Has tho defendant wrongfully and unlawfully levied from theplaintiff a sum of Rs. 18-48 or part thereof ?
(S)Has the defendant imposed and levied the land Tax in the form of anAssessment Tax on all buildings and all lands of the extent oflive acres and less within the said Village area ?
(!•) I f the answer to issue No. 8 is in the negative is such discriminationillegal I'
The learned Commissioner answered issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in tho negativeand issue 8 in the affirmative. In view of his answers to issues 2 and 3it was not. necessary to answer issue 4 ; likewise with regard to issues0 and 9 an answer was unnecessary in view of his answers to issues.» and 8. In t he result the appellant’s action was dismissed with costs.
•13- SWAN J.—Nnvnralnam v. Village Committee of Knndukara l/iala Korale
Several points have been taken in the'petition of appeal some of whichcannot be entertained inasmuch as they involve questions of fact andno leave to appeal on the facts was granted by the Commissioner ofRequests or obtained from this Court. Learned Counsel for the appellanthas pressed the appeal on only one point, namely that tlioro was noresolution declaring any particular area to bo a built-up locality, that,such a declaration is a condition precedent to the imposition of anacreago tax.
Section 44 of the Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. 108) (9 of 1924 as.amended by 60 of 1938, 01 of 1938, ll of 1940 and 9 of 1940) providesfor the imposition of a capitation tax. This I am given to understandhas been abolished. Section 45 (1) provides for the imposition of a landtax in addition to the capitation tax. This must be on a resolution dulypassed by the Committee and must receive the approval of the Ministerand bo duly published in the Gazette. Section 45 (3) sets out tlurf theland tax shall consist of either or both of the following :—,
(tt) an assessment tax not exceeding four per centum of the annualvalue of all buildings and all lands situated in localities within thevillago area which are declared by the Village Committee witht he approval of tho Covernment Agent to he built-up localities ;and
an acreage tax not exceeding fifty cents a year on each acre ofland which is situated outside a built-up locality and is underpermanent cultivation or regular cultivation of any kind otherthan paddy and chena cultivation ; ”
There are certain provisos which aie not relevant to the point inissue.
Mr. Porcra’s contention is that before an acreage tax can bo imposedthere must be a resolution passed by the Committee after due notice there-of has been given according to the regulations declaring a certain area to hea built-up locality ; until there is such a declaration it is not possibleto say that any land to be subjected to the acreage tax is situatedoutside a built-up locality within the meaning and contemplation of section45 (3) (ft). With this contention I am unable to agree. It seems falla-cious. The two taxes are independent of each other and not inter-dependent. If Mr. Perera’s contention is to bo upheld a Village Com-mittee can in no circumstances levy an acreage tax in a locality in whichthere are no buildings. This would nullify the intention of the legislaturewhen it gave Village Committees the right to impose either an assessmenttax or an acreage tax, or where it seemed necessary both an assessment,tax and an ncrcage tax.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.