{"id":185624,"date":"1987-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987"},"modified":"2017-11-01T06:01:15","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T00:31:15","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR  802, \t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 107<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.N. MURTHY &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/01\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  802\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 107\n 1987 SCC  (1) 568\t  JT 1987 (1)\t285\n 1987 SCALE  (1)213\n\n\nACT:\n    Hyderabad  Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 Section\t197,\n199,  202  &amp; 204--Municipal Corporation\t allotting  building\nunder  'Low  Income  Housing  Scheme'--Corporation   whether\nprohibited  from levying and collecting 'property tax'\tfrom\nallottees.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant-Municipal Corporation of  Hyderabad\tcon-\nstructed houses under \"Low Income Housing Scheme\" and allot-\nted them to the respondents on hire purchase. The agreements\nexecuted  by  the  respondents in favour  of  the  appellant\nprovided (1) that the houses would remain, till the  payment\nof  the\t last instalment and execution of  a  conveyance  in\nfavour\tof the respondents, as the property of the  Corpora-\ntion;  and  (ii) that all Municipal taxes, water  taxes\t and\nelectricity charges would be borne by the allottees.\n    The\t appellant served demand notices on the\t respondents\nto  pay house tax in respect of their houses. By that  time,\nthe  instalments  had not been fully paid.  The\t respondents\nchallenged  'the levy of tax on the ground that s.202(1)  of\nthe  Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act prohibits the\tlevy\nof  general  tax in respect of the aforesaid  houses,  since\nthey  had not yet vested unto the allottees under  the\thire\npurchase agreement. A Single Judge negatived the plea of the\nrespondents-allottees and upheld the validity of tax but the\nDivision  Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal took\t a  contrary\nview. Hence this appeal by special leave.\nAllowing the appeal,\n    HELD: (1) In order to attract s.202(1)(c) of the Hydera-\nbad  Municipal\tCorporation Act, a property must  satisfy  a\ndual test. The property must not only owned by the  Corpora-\ntion,  it must also be in the occupation of the\t Corporation\nitself. It is in this sense that the word 'vesting' has been\nused.  The expression 'vest' employed in  s.202(1)(c)  under\nthe circumstances must of necessity be construed as  vesting\nboth in title as well as in possession. [113G-H]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1302911\/\">Fruit  &amp;  Vegetable  Merchants Union  v.  Delhi\t Improvement\nTrust,<\/a>\n108\nA.I.R. 1954 S.C.p. 344 and Richardson v. Robertson, [1862] 6\nL.T.p. 75, relied upon.\n    (2)\t The scheme underlying ss. 197, 199, 200 and 204  of\nthe  Act has to be read and construed in a meaningful,\tpur-\nposeful and rational manner. Section 197(1)(i) casts a legal\nobligation  on\tthe Municipal Corporation to levy  taxes  on\nlands  and  buildings. Section 199(1)  makes  it  obligatory\nsubject\t to  the exceptions, limitations and  conditions  to\nlevy  a\t general  tax, water  tax,  drainage  tax,  lighting\ntax\/conservancy\t tax on the buildings and lands in the\tCity\nof Hyderabad. Whilst the legislature makes it obligatory  on\nthe  Corporation to levy the aforesaid taxes, in so  far  as\ngeneral\t tax is concerned an exception is carved  out  under\ns.202(1) and the Municipal Corporation is relieved from\t the\nobligation  of imposing taxes in respect of buildings  which\nare specified in clauses(a) to (d). The exception is made on\npolicy\tand  principle.\t Not  arbitrarily.  Essentially\t the\nproperties  which are used for public purposes or  for\tpur-\nposes  of  the community are exempted.\tClause(d)  makes  it\nabundantly clear that the exemption will not be extended  to\nproperties  belonging  to the Central Government  and  State\nGovernment  if the same are used for purposes of profit\t and\nnot  a\tpublic\tpurpose. The user for the  purposes  of\t the\ncommunity is the rationale of the thread of principle  which\nruns  through all these three clauses viz. clauses (a),\t (b)\nand  (d) for granting exemption. So far as clause(c),  which\nhas  given rise to the present controversy is  concerned,  a\ndifferent principle is at the bottom, different but no\tless\nrational. The philosophy underlying the exemption is  rooted\nin  pragmatism. In so far as buildings and lands  which\t are\nthe  properties of the Corporation and are used for its\t own\npurposes  it  would be an exercise in  futility\t to  collect\ntaxes  from  itself in order to augment its  own  resources.\nSurely\tthe  resources would not stand\taugmented  when\t the\nMunicipal Corporation collects the taxes from itself. [111D;\n112A-F]\n    3.\tSection\t 204(1)\t which is a part of  the  packet  of\nsections relating to this subject-matter clinches the  issue\nin favour of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It,  in\nterms,\tprovides that property taxes shall be leviable\tpri-\nmarily\tfrom the actual occupier of the premises upon  which\nthe said taxes are assessed, if such occupier holds the said\npremises immediately from the Government or from the  Corpo-\nration.\t If  the  property taxes were not to  be  levied  in\nrespect\t of the property belonging to the Corporation  which\nis used and occupied by allottees or other occupiers,  there\nwould be no point or purpose in making the provision in\t the\naforesaid manner. The provision in terms applies to a situa-\ntion  where  the  buildings or the premises  are  in  actual\noccupation of\n109\na  person or body other than the Municipal  Corporation\t it-\nself. In such an event, the property taxes would be leviable\nprimarily  from\t the said occupier as if the  said  occupier\nholds the property from the Corporation itself. This  leaves\nno room for doubt that the Corporation is entitled to impose\ntaxes  on  the buildings which may be owned  by\t itself\t but\nwhich may be in occupation of others. Otherwise, the  provi-\nsion  contained in s. 204(1) would be rendered\taimless\t and\notiose. [113B-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  123(N)<br \/>\nof 1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the Judgment and Order dated 26. 10. 1972  of\t the<br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 444 of 1968.<br \/>\nB. Parthasarthy and G .N. Rao for the Appellant.<br \/>\nB. Kanta Rao for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    THAKKAR,  J. Is the Municipal Corporation  of  Hyderabad<br \/>\nprohibited from levying Municipal taxes from persons induct-<br \/>\ned by it in the property of its own ownership under the hire<br \/>\npurchase agreement? The validity of levy of Municipal  taxes<br \/>\nby the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad from allottees  to<br \/>\nwhom  the Municipal Corporation had allotted buildings\tcon-<br \/>\nstructed  under &#8220;Low Income Housing Scheme&#8221; launched  by  it<br \/>\nwas  questioned by the allottees. The learned  Single  Judge<br \/>\nupheld the validity but the Division Bench in. appeal, Under<br \/>\nClause\t15 of the Letters Patent. took a contrary view.\t The<br \/>\nMunicipal  Corporation\thas preferred  the  present  appeal,<br \/>\nAppeal\tby Special Leave and has contended that the  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge was right in upholding the levy and the  Divi-<br \/>\nsion Bench was wrong in holding it invalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The facts giving rise to the writ petition instituted by<br \/>\nthe 72 allottees to whom the houses were allotted need to be<br \/>\nstated briefly:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation started  a<br \/>\n\t      scheme  called  Low Income Housing  Scheme  in<br \/>\n\t      1957. In pursuance of that scheme, the  Corpo-<br \/>\n\t      ration  constructed several houses in  various<br \/>\n\t      parts  of\t the Hyderabad\tCity  including\t the<br \/>\n\t      locality\tof  Malakpet. After  the  houses  at<br \/>\n\t      Malakpet\twere  completed,  applications\twere<br \/>\n\t      invited from persons belonging to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      110<\/span><br \/>\n\t      that group for the purpose of allotting  these<br \/>\n\t      houses.  The writ petitioners applied and\t the<br \/>\n\t      Corporation allotted the houses to them.\tThey<br \/>\n\t      are occupying the houses since 1959. The\twrit<br \/>\n\t      petitioners  executed agreements in favour  of<br \/>\n\t      the Corporation. According to the terms of the<br \/>\n\t      agreement,  the allottees were put in  posses-<br \/>\n\t      sion  of\tthe  houses allotted  to  them.\t The<br \/>\n\t      allottees were to pay 20% of the sale price as<br \/>\n\t      the first instalment and they were required to<br \/>\n\t      pay  the balance in monthly  instalments.\t The<br \/>\n\t      agreement\t  specifically\tprovides  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      houses  would remain, till the payment of\t the<br \/>\n\t      last instalment and execution of a  conveyance<br \/>\n\t      in  favour  of the writ  petitioners,  as\t the<br \/>\n\t      property of the Corporation. The allottee\t has<br \/>\n\t      been strictly prohibited from selling or mort-<br \/>\n\t      gaging or otherwise disposing of the house  or<br \/>\n\t      even to sublet or part with possession of\t the<br \/>\n\t      same.  Even after the writ petitioners  become<br \/>\n\t      owners of the houses, they are precluded\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      selling  the  same within five years  of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      date. The agreement further provides that\t all<br \/>\n\t      municipal taxes and water taxes and electrici-<br \/>\n\t      ty  charges would be borne by  the  allottees.<br \/>\n\t      The writ petitioners were served with a demand<br \/>\n\t      notice on 31-12-1964 asking them to pay  house<br \/>\n\t      taxes  from 1-4-1961 onwards. The\t demand\t no-<br \/>\n\t      tice,  which the writ petitioners received  on<br \/>\n\t      16-4-1965,  required the writ  petitioners  to<br \/>\n\t      file objections, if any before 15 days of\t the<br \/>\n\t      receipt  of the notice. The  writ\t petitioners<br \/>\n\t      accordingly  filed their objections  on  29-4-<br \/>\n\t      1965.  The principal contention of  the  peti-<br \/>\n\t      tioners was that the houses are not liable  to<br \/>\n\t      be taxed as they vest in the Municipal  Corpo-<br \/>\n\t      ration,  and as the writ petitioners  are\t not<br \/>\n\t      the  owners  of the  houses,  Negativing\tthis<br \/>\n\t      contention, the Municipal Corporation served a<br \/>\n\t      notice  dated  19-6-1966\tdemanding  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      petitioners  taxes for the  period  commencing<br \/>\n\t      from  1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1965.  It<br \/>\n\t      is this demand notice which has given rise  to<br \/>\n\t      the writ petition, giving rise to the  present<br \/>\n\t      appeal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The\t challenge  to\tthe levy of taxes is  built  on\t the<br \/>\nargument  that inasmuch the houses under the  hire  purchase<br \/>\nagreement  have\t not  yet vested  unto\tthe  allottees,\t the<br \/>\nproperty vests unto the Municipal Corporation and under\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  Section\t202(1) of  the\tHyderabad  Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation Act (Act) prohibits the levy of the general\t tax<br \/>\nin respect of these houses.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">111<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    In\torder to deal with the plea of the  allottees  which<br \/>\nwas  negatived by the learned Single Judge but sustained  by<br \/>\nthe  learned  Judges  of the Division  Bench,  the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act require to be noticed. They are:-<br \/>\nSections 197(1)(i), 199(1), 202(1) and 204( 1)&#8217;<br \/>\n    It is no doubt true that until all the instalments under<br \/>\nthe  hire purchase agreement were paid, the allottees  would<br \/>\nnot become the owners of the houses for the title would vest<br \/>\nunto  them only upon the payment of all the  instalments  as<br \/>\nper  the  stipulation  contained in the\t agreement.  At\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  point\t of time the instalments had  not  yet\tbeen<br \/>\nfully  paid.  The title in regard to  the  houses  therefore<br \/>\ncontinued  to  vest unto the Municipal\tCorporation  at\t the<br \/>\nrelevant   time.  The  question\t then  is  whether   Section<br \/>\n202(1)(c)  makes  it unlawful to levy general tax  from\t the<br \/>\nallottees  of  these buildings. The  scheme  underlying\t the<br \/>\naforesaid packet of provisions embodied in the Act  deserves<br \/>\nto  be analysed in this context. Section 197(1)(i)  casts  a<br \/>\nlegal obligation on the Municipal Corporation to levy  taxes<br \/>\non  lands and buildings. Section 199(1) makes it  obligatory<br \/>\nsubject to the exceptions, limitations\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  &#8220;Section  197(1)(i): For the purposes of this  Act,\t the<br \/>\nCorporation  shall  impose the following taxes\tnamely:\t (a)<br \/>\ntaxes on lands and buildings; X X X X&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;199(1):  The following taxes shall subject  to\t exceptions,<br \/>\nlimitations  and  conditions herein provided  be  levied  on<br \/>\nbuildings  and\tlands in the City and shall  hereinafter  be<br \/>\nreferred  to as property taxes, namely:- (a) a general\ttax;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) a water tax; (c) a drainage tax; (d) a lighting tax; (e)<br \/>\na conservancy tax;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;202(1):  The general tax shall be levied in respect of\t all<br \/>\nbuildings and lands in the city except;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  buildings and lands solely used for purposes  connected<br \/>\nwith the disposal of the dead;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) buildings and lands or portions thereof solely  occupied<br \/>\nand  used for public worship or for a charitable  or  educa-<br \/>\ntional purpose;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) buildings and lands vesting in the corporation;\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) buildings and lands vesting in the Central Government or<br \/>\nstate  Government  used solely for public purposes  and\t not<br \/>\nused  or intended to be used for purposes of profit  in\t re-<br \/>\nspect  of  which the said tax, if levied,  would  under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions hereinafter contained be primarily leviable\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  Central Government or State Government as the case\t may<br \/>\nbe.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;204(1): Property taxes shall be leviable primarily from the<br \/>\nactual\toccupier of the premises upon which the\t said  taxes<br \/>\nare assessed if such occupier holds the said premises  imme-<br \/>\ndiately from the Government or from the Corporation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">112<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and conditions embodied in the relevant provisions, to\tlevy<br \/>\na  general  tax, water tax, drainage tax, lighting  tax\t and<br \/>\nconservancy  tax on the buildings and lands in the  City  of<br \/>\nHyderabad. Whilst the legislature makes it obligatory on the<br \/>\nCorporation to levy the aforesaid taxes, in so far as gener-<br \/>\nal tax is concerned an exception is carved out under Section<br \/>\n202(1)\tand the Municipal Corporation is relieved  from\t the<br \/>\nobligation  of imposing taxes in respect of buildings  which<br \/>\nare specified in clauses (a) to (d). Evidently the exception<br \/>\nis made on policy and principle. Not arbitrarily. Essential-<br \/>\nly the properties which are used for public purposes or\t for<br \/>\npurposes  of  the community are exempted.  For\tinstance  by<br \/>\nclause\t(a) buildings and lands which are used for  purposes<br \/>\nconnected  with the disposal of the dead are exempted  inas-<br \/>\nmuch  as the entire community is interested in such a  user.<br \/>\nThe  same principle is discernible in regard to\t clause\t (b)<br \/>\nwhich provides for exemption in regard to lands or buildings<br \/>\nsolely\toccupied  for public worship or\t for  charitable  or<br \/>\neducational  purpose. The same philosophy is discernible  in<br \/>\nthe  exemption accorded under clause (d) to  properties\t be-<br \/>\nlonging to Central or State Government which are used solely<br \/>\nfor  a public purpose. Be it realized that clause (d)  makes<br \/>\nit abundantly clear that the exemption will not be  extended<br \/>\nto properties belonging to the Central Government and  State<br \/>\nGovernment  if the same are used for purposes of profit\t and<br \/>\nnot  for a public purpose. The user for the purposes of\t the<br \/>\ncommunity is the rationale of the thread of principle  which<br \/>\nruns through all these three clauses (viz. clauses (a),\t (b)<br \/>\nand  (d) for granting exemption. So far as clause (c)  which<br \/>\nhas  given rise to the present controversy is  concerned,  a<br \/>\ndifferent principle is at the bottom: different but no\tless<br \/>\nrational. The philosophy underlying the exemption is  rooted<br \/>\nin  pragmatism. In so far as buildings and lands  which\t are<br \/>\nthe  properties of the Corporation and are used for its\t own<br \/>\npurposes,  it  would be an exercise in futility\t to  collect<br \/>\ntaxes  from  itself in order to augment its  own  resources.<br \/>\nSurely\tthe  resources would not stand\taugmented  when\t the<br \/>\nMunicipal  Corporation collects the taxes from\titself.\t How<br \/>\nwould  one benefit by taking money from one pocket and\tput-<br \/>\nting  it in another pocket of oneself? By  transfering\tfrom<br \/>\none drawer of one&#8217;s own cash box into another drawer of\t the<br \/>\nsame  cash box? The whole purpose of levying tax is to\taug-<br \/>\nment  its resources and not merely to engage in an  exercise<br \/>\nin accountancy, by crediting in one account and debiting  in<br \/>\nanother,  which does not result in its resources being\taug-<br \/>\nmented in reality. In fact a sizable staff would have to  be<br \/>\nemployed  for  making the valuation of the  properties,\t for<br \/>\nmaking\tassessment of the properties, and for making  credit<br \/>\nand  debit  entries in the relevant accounts.  That  is\t the<br \/>\nobvious\t reason\t why buildings and lands which vest  in\t the<br \/>\nCorporation and which are in its own use and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">113<\/span><br \/>\noccupation  are\t sought\t to be exempted from  the  levy.  Of<br \/>\ncourse\tclause (c) which provides for exemptions in  respect<br \/>\nof  &#8220;buildings and lands vesting in the Corporation&#8221; is\t not<br \/>\nvery  happily or perfectly worded. Had it been drafted\twith<br \/>\nthe care and precision to be expected from a perfect drafts-<br \/>\nman  (who exists only in theory and not in practice),  there<br \/>\nwould  have been no scope for the controversy. But  then  if<br \/>\nthe  entire  scheme is viewed in a common sense\t manner,  so<br \/>\nthat  the scheme makes sense, the matter cannot present\t any<br \/>\nserious\t problem.  Section  204(1) which is a  part  of\t the<br \/>\npacket\tof sections relating to this subjectmatter  clinches<br \/>\nthe issue in favour of the Municipal Corporation of  Hydera-<br \/>\nbad, the appellant herein. It in terms provides that proper-<br \/>\nty taxes shall be leviable primarily from the actual occupi-<br \/>\ner  of the premises upon which the said taxes are  assessed,<br \/>\nif  such occupier holds the said premises  immediately\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  Government\t or from the Corporation.  If  the  property<br \/>\ntaxes  were  not  to be levied in respect  of  the  property<br \/>\nbelonging  to the Corporation which is used and occupied  by<br \/>\nallottees  or  other occupiers there would be  no  point  or<br \/>\npurpose in making the provision in the aforesaid manner. The<br \/>\nprovision  in terms applies to a situation where the  build-<br \/>\nings or the premises are in actual occupation of a person or<br \/>\nbody other than the Municipal Corporation itself. 1n such an<br \/>\nevent  the property taxes would be leviable  primarily\tfrom<br \/>\nthe said occupier as if the said occupier holds the property<br \/>\nfrom  the Corporation itself. This leaves no room for  doubt<br \/>\nthat  the  Corporation is entitled to impose  taxes  on\t the<br \/>\nbuildings  which may be owned by itself but which may be  in<br \/>\noccupation of others. Otherwise, the provision contained  in<br \/>\nSection 204(1) would be rendered aimless and otiose.  Surely<br \/>\nthe legislature was enacting a purposeful provision and\t not<br \/>\na purposeless provision without aim or object.<br \/>\n    For the aforesaid reasons we are of the opinion that the<br \/>\nlearned\t Single Judge was right in taking the view that\t the<br \/>\nbuildings and lands vesting unto the Corporation not only in<br \/>\ntitle but also in possession (as polarized from those  vest-<br \/>\ning in title only but not in possession) were exempted\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  obligation\t imposed  by the  legislature  to  levy\t the<br \/>\nproperty taxes. Buildings and lands which were merely  owned<br \/>\nby  the Corporation but were in actual possession  or  under<br \/>\nthe  actual use and occupation of some one else, that is  to<br \/>\nsay persons or bodies other than the Corporation itself\t are<br \/>\nnot  exempted.\tIn  order to  attract  Section\t202(1)(c)  a<br \/>\nproperty  must\tsatisfy a dual test. The property  must\t not<br \/>\nonly  be  owned by the Corporation, it must also be  in\t the<br \/>\noccupation  of the Corporation itself. It is in\t this  sense<br \/>\nthat  the word &#8216;vesting&#8217; has been used. And the\t proposition<br \/>\nthat the expression &#8216;vest&#8217; is capable of being used in\tthis<br \/>\nsense, depending on the context in which it is emp-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">114<\/span><\/p>\n<p>loyed,\tis supported by the observations made by this  Court<br \/>\nin  <a href=\"\/doc\/1302911\/\">Fruit &amp; Vegetable Merchants Union v.  Delhi\t Improvement<br \/>\nTrust, A.I.R.<\/a> 1954 S.C.p. 344. It has been observed  therein<br \/>\nthat the word vest:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;is  a word of variable import and a property must  vest  in<br \/>\ntitle or may vest in possession or it may vest in a  limited<br \/>\nsense, as indicated in the context  &#8230;..  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Reliance  has been placed in this context on a passage\tfrom<br \/>\nRichardson  v. Robertson, [1862] 6 L.T.p. 75 wherein  it  is<br \/>\nstressed that the &#8216;vesting&#8217; often means &#8216;vesting&#8217; in posses-<br \/>\nsion.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t scheme of the relevant sections has to be read\t and<br \/>\nconstrued  in a meaningful, purposeful and rational  manner.<br \/>\nThe  expression &#8216;vest&#8217; employed in Section 202(1)(c),  under<br \/>\nthe circumstances must of necessity be construed as  vesting<br \/>\nboth in title as well as in possession. Be it realized\tthat<br \/>\nthere can be no principle in exempting the tenants  inducted<br \/>\nby the Municipal Corporation in its property from payment of<br \/>\ntaxes  if  the terms of the lease so provide.  Just  as\t the<br \/>\ntenants\t who  occupy  the properties  belonging\t to  private<br \/>\ncitizens  have\tto pay property taxes if the  terms  of\t the<br \/>\nagreement so provide, the tenants inducted by the  Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation  in\t buildings owned by itself have to  pay\t the<br \/>\nproperty taxes if the agreement so provides. There can be no<br \/>\nrational basis for exempting the tenants or persons inducted<br \/>\nby  the\t Municipal  Corporation in its\town  buildings\tfrom<br \/>\npayment\t of  such taxes. The concerned\tprovision  therefore<br \/>\ncannot\tbe read in the manner suggested by the\trespondents.<br \/>\nThe learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in negativ-<br \/>\ning their contentions and in dismissing their writ petition.<br \/>\nThe  learned Judges of the Division Bench were in  error  in<br \/>\nreversing  the\tlearned Single Judge. We,  therefore,  allow<br \/>\nthis  appeal,  set aside the order passed  by  the  Division<br \/>\nBench,\tand restore the order passed by the  learned  Single<br \/>\nJudge  dismissing the writ petition. There will be no  order<br \/>\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>M.L.A.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">115<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 802, 1987 SCR (2) 107 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD Vs. RESPONDENT: P.N. MURTHY &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/01\/1987 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2449,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987","datePublished":"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987"},"wordCount":2449,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987","name":"Municipal Corporation Of ... vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T00:31:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-vs-p-n-murthy-ors-on-30-january-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of &#8230; vs P.N. Murthy &amp; Ors on 30 January, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}