Delegated property tax power upheld, but retrospective validation of earlier collections failed where the defect could not be cured.

The amendment authorising the Bangalore Development Authority to levy and collect property tax was upheld because the delegation was limited, guided by the parent statute, and controlled through the municipal assessment and collection machinery. The incorporation of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act machinery was also sustained as a procedural adoption for tax administration, not an arbitrary conferral of fiscal power. The validating provision, however, could not retrospectively cure earlier property-tax collections where the defect was tied to a final factual finding that no service had been rendered; that part of the validation failed. The retrospective deeming provision relating to cesses was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conferment of power on the Bangalore Development Authority to levy and collect property tax was an invalid case of excessive delegation or arbitrary delegation, (ii) whether incorporation of the machinery provisions of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 for assessment and collection was arbitrary, and (iii) whether the validating provision could validly cure past collection of property tax and sustain the levy of cesses under the amended scheme.

Issue (i): whether the conferment of power on the Bangalore Development Authority to levy and collect property tax was an invalid case of excessive delegation or arbitrary delegation

Analysis: The statutory body was constituted for planned development of Bangalore and adjoining areas, and the amendment entrusted it with specified civic obligations and the limited power to levy property tax within its jurisdiction. The levy was not left to unguided discretion, because the procedure for assessment and collection was controlled by the machinery of the municipal enactment. The constitutional principle governing delegation permits legislative entrustment of power so long as the legislature retains its authority and provides adequate guidance. A non-elected character of the authority, by itself, was not enough to invalidate the delegation.

Conclusion: The delegation to levy and collect property tax was upheld and the challenge on the ground of excessive delegation failed.

Issue (ii): whether incorporation of the machinery provisions of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 for assessment and collection was arbitrary

Analysis: The argument that the municipal machinery was blindly borrowed was rejected. The authority's functions under the development statute were not materially dissimilar in principle from municipal functions, and the tax authorised under the amendment was narrower in its revenue base and purpose. Since the collection mechanism was only a procedural adoption and not an uncontrolled conferment of fiscal power, the legislative choice was neither irrational nor beyond competence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adoption of the municipal machinery provisions failed.

Issue (iii): whether the validating provision could validly cure past collection of property tax and sustain the levy of cesses under the amended scheme

Analysis: A validating law can operate only if the cause of invalidity is removed and the legislature does not merely reverse a judicial finding. The earlier final finding that no service had been rendered at the relevant time meant that the defect affecting the past levy was factual and incapable of being cured by a mere declaration. That part of the validation which sought to legalise prior property-tax collections therefore could not stand. In contrast, the cesses collected under the deemed-local-authority provision were collected as an agent under the named enactments, and the retrospective deeming provision removed the procedural lacuna concerning collection by a local authority.

Conclusion: The validating provision was invalid to the extent it purported to validate past property-tax collections, but the provision relating to cesses was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The amendment was sustained in part, but the retrospective validation of earlier property-tax collections was struck down, with the consequence that only that limited part of the challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating statute can cure past fiscal invalidity only by removing the legal or factual basis of invalidity and cannot simply override a final judicial finding; a legislative delegation to a statutory body is valid if it is guided and controlled by the parent statute.

---