Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0277

From Panchayatwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Standing Committee for Finance has powers to give directions to amend assessment books. en inadequately assessed or where property has been inadvertently or improperly omitted from assessment books or when a clerical or arithmetical error has crept in the assessment. – Rermal Padmanabhan v. Tribunal for Local Self Govt. Institutions, Tvm and Another - 2015 (3) KHC 406 : ILR 2015 (3) Ker. 134 : 2015 (3) KLT 201.

Section 74 [corresponding to S.210, 232 & 236 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] - In the matter of default in payment of building tax due to the Panchayat, the rule enables the Magistrate Court to impose fine not exceeding twice the amount which may be due from the accused. But as per the limitation contained in Section 29(2) of Cr.P.C, Magistrate cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs. 5000/-. Subordinate legislation cannot enlarge the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Magistrate of First Class, from the limit fixed by Section 29 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which is Rupees 5000/-. In the light of the above bar on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the above order of sentence imposing fine to the tune of Rupees 15,000 each on the accused has to be held as illegal. But at the very same time, after having found the accused guilty, they shall not go unpunished but, of course, subject to the above pecuniary limitation. But, still even in such event, the panchayat will not be benefited or compensated and the tax arrears due to the panchayat cannot be realised unless an order passed by the Court below by invoking Rule 26 (2) of the Rules. Thus, if the Trial Court, after evaluating the entire factual situation involved in the matter, invokes Rule 26 (2) and fixes an appropriate amount, the same will be sufficient to advance the Rule and give effect for the same. Besides invoking Rule 26 (2) of the Rules, the Magistrate can also invoke Section 357 of CrPC-A.E.Damodaran and Others v. Special Grade Executive Officer and Another – 2007 (4) KHC 894. [2001 KHC 136 : 2001 (1) KLT 517 (SC): 2001 (2) SCC 595 : AIR 2001 SC 567; (Paras 5, 8, 10, 12) - Referred to.]

If there is any provision either in the old Act or the Rules framed thereunder treating the arrears of bid amount as tax recoverable under the Act or the Rules, then a prosecution under S.74 for realisation of the arrears of bid amount would be perfectly justified. By virtue of the statutory fiction rent or arrears of rent payable by a lessee who is the successful bidder in respect of a market would become converted to arrears of tax recoverable under 9.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (previous Act). Persons who undertake various works under the panchayats which award the contract for such works in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the statute, cannot be permitted to disown their liabilities towards the Panchayats. - Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat v. Saleem - 2005 (4) KLT 415. (2004 (2) KLT 1115: 2004(3) KLT 835 Overruled; 1992 (1) KLT 291; 1995 (2) KLT 75 Approved; 1995 (2) KLT 720; 1983 KLT 677; AIR 1924 Mad. 898; 1973 KLT 145 & AIR 1924 Mad. 669 Referred to).

The rent payable is in terms of the agreement executed between the parties and not something imposed by or levied under the Act. The rule making power is conferred by Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the new Act) which contains almost 4 sub-sections and 44 clauses and there is no provision in the sub-clauses enabling the Government to make rules for realisation of rent. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the arrears of rent arising out of lease agreement is "anything due under the Act" or under the rules to launch a prosecution in terms of the second proviso to Section 210 of the Act. – Peravoor Grama Panchayat v. Rafi - 2004 (2) KLT 1115. [1992 (1) KLT 291 - Distinguished].

Ss. 210 & 284 (2)(i) – Prosecution on default to pay bid amount - It is not a statutory due leviable under the Act but arises. under a contract and hence prosecution is not maintainable. – Thalavoor Grama Panchayat v. Salim – 2004 (3) KLT 835 – [1995 (2) KLT 75-Distinguished; 2004 (2) KLT 1115 Followed].

Acquisition & transfer of immovable property Rules - Sanction for release of the land - Representation for assignment of puramboke in adverse possession - Resolution passed by the Panchayat - Sanction for release cannot be refused for capricious or irrelevant reasons. - State of Kerala v. Dominic Cyriac – 2002 (3) KLT 175. Panchayat (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Properties) Rules, 1963 - R.6 - Right to continue possession of the Panchayat shop rooms after specific period – Reasoning that circular will enable the occupant to continue in possession for indefinite period on paying 5% increase in rent cannot be supported - Since new Panchayat Raj Act and Rules is in force and hence parties will be governed by the new Act and Rules. - Executive Officer v. Abdul Jabbar – 2002 (3) KLT 366. [1994 (1) KLT 923 Referred to].

Amount due to the Panchayat even though it does not come within the category of arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax or fees levied under the Act can also be recovered in the manner provided in the rules for the collection of taxes under the Act. – Suresh v. Executive Officer – 1995 (2) KLT 75: 1995 (2) KLJ 17.

Book.png ഈ താൾ 2018 -ലെ പഞ്ചായത്ത് റെപ്പോ നിർമ്മാണം യജ്ഞത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി സൃഷ്ടിച്ചതാണ്.

വർഗ്ഗം:റെപ്പോയിൽ സൃഷ്ടിക്കപ്പെട്ട ലേഖനങ്ങൾ