Common compound liability under municipal water tax law extends to all buildings sharing land used in common within the prescribed distance.

'Common compound' in Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 covers land held and used in common by occupants of several buildings, not only land appurtenant to a single building. If any part of that common compound lies within the prescribed distance from the stand-pipe, the entire cluster of buildings falls within the water-tax net. A writ court may interfere where the appellate authority applies the wrong statutory construction and ignores the wider limb of the explanation. On the facts described, the factory premises were held liable to water-tax under the municipal notification and rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "common compound" in Section 129, Explanation (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 covers buildings situated in a common area used in common by the occupants, irrespective of whether the land is appurtenant to each building; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate authority's order in writ jurisdiction; (iii) whether the factory premises were within the water-tax net under Section 129 read with Section 128(1)(x) in view of the notification and rules governing the municipal levy.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "common compound" in Section 129, Explanation (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 covers buildings situated in a common area used in common by the occupants, irrespective of whether the land is appurtenant to each building.

Analysis: Section 128(1)(x) authorises water-tax on buildings or lands, while Section 129 restricts that power by measuring the distance of a building from the nearest stand-pipe. Explanation (a) to Section 129 separately includes, first, the compound of a building and, secondly, where several buildings stand in a common compound, all such buildings and the common compound. The latter phrase is wider than the notion of an individual compound under Section 2(5). The decisive factor is common use and enjoyment of the land by occupants of several buildings, not appurtenance of the land to any one building. If any part of such common compound falls within the prescribed radius, the whole cluster is brought within the tax net.

Conclusion: The expression "common compound" includes land used in common by occupants of several buildings, and the requirement of appurtenance is not applicable to that part of the provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate authority's order in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate authority proceeded on an erroneous construction by ignoring the second limb of Explanation (a) to Section 129 and confining itself to the definition of "compound" in Section 2(5). That omission amounted to a patent error of law. Such an error was amenable to correction in writ jurisdiction. The learned single Judge therefore had jurisdiction to interfere, although the reasoning employed was not fully accurate.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate authority's order.

Issue (iii): Whether the factory premises were within the water-tax net under Section 129 read with Section 128(1)(x) in view of the notification and rules governing the municipal levy.

Analysis: The municipal rules framed under Section 296 and the governing notification authorised water-tax on lands and buildings within 600 feet of the nearest stand-pipe without confining the levy to residential buildings. The materials showed that the respondent's complex, including the factory area, formed part of a common compound and that a part of that common compound lay within the prescribed distance. The objection based on residential use alone was therefore unsustainable, and the presumption of regularity supported the authenticity and effect of the notification and rules produced.

Conclusion: The factory premises were within the tax net and were liable to water-tax.

Final Conclusion: The levy of water-tax on the respondent's residential and non-residential buildings was upheld, the Division Bench's order was set aside, and the writ petition in favour of the municipal authority stood allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, "common compound" denotes land held and used in common by occupants of several buildings, and once any part of that common compound lies within the prescribed distance from the stand-pipe, all buildings situated therein are liable to water-tax.

---