Broad interpretation of land and building upheld municipal property tax on mobile towers and BTS cabins.

Entry 49 of List II was interpreted broadly and inclusively, with "land" and "building" not confined by municipal definition clauses. Applying constitutional interpretation, common parlance, and the principle that a legislative entry extends to ancillary and subsidiary matters, the Court treated land as including things attached to or permanently fastened to the earth and building as not limited to residential structures. On that basis, mobile towers were treated as within the scope of land and building for municipal property tax, and the cabin housing the BTS system was also treated as a building. The levy was therefore constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether mobile towers could be treated as lands or buildings for the purpose of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and sustained as a valid subject of municipal property tax, and whether the cabin housing the BTS system was separately exigible to tax as a building.

Analysis: Entry 49 of List II was construed in a broad, liberal and inclusive manner. The meaning of the legislative entry was held not to be controlled by the definition clauses in the municipal statute itself. Applying constitutional interpretation, common parlance, and the principle that an entry must extend to ancillary and subsidiary matters, the Court held that land includes everything attached to or permanently fastened to the earth and that building is not confined to a residential structure. The tax under the Gujarat Act was also viewed as a levy on land and building, with the incidence measured by rateable value and borne by the occupier, which was consistent with a tax under Entry 49. In that constitutional and statutory setting, mobile towers were held to fall within the scope of land and building for tax purposes, and the cabin containing the BTS system was likewise treated as a building.

Conclusion: The levy of tax on mobile towers was constitutionally valid and the cabin/BTS structure was also taxable as a building.

Final Conclusion: The State and municipal authorities were held competent to levy property tax on mobile towers under Entry 49 of List II, and the challenge to the levy failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Entry 49 of List II, the expressions "land" and "building" receive a broad, evolving and inclusive interpretation, and a municipal tax on mobile towers measured by their use of land or building is a valid tax on lands and buildings.

---