' This second appeal has been filed by Mrs. Tahsin Shafqat to challenge a judgment of the District Judge, Karachi, whereby the appeal of respondents, Karachi Municipal. Corporation (Civil Appeal No, 223/ 1965) against a judgment of the Third Civil Judge, First Class, Karachi, in suit No, 1197/1948 was accepted by reversing the judgment of the Civil Judge, I have heard Mr. M. G. Dastgir for the appellant and Mr. Muslim Naqvi for the respondents, Karachi Municipal Corporation. On the conclusion of the hearing on 27th January, 1980 by a short order this appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs and the reasons for such short order presently follow.
2. The appellant Mrs. Tahsin Shafqat owns some quarters in Pir 111ahi Bux Colony. It is her case that the quarters in the said colony were not connected with Municipal Water Works by means of Water connection pipes so that the Karachi Municipal Corporation used to supply water to the Housing Society at a reservoir from where the water carriers used to lift the water and supply the quarters on daily payment by the occupants of the quarters. This supply of water in the reservoir was stopped from 1st May, 1958 and the Corporation notified that they had started giving water connections to the quarters in the Society. The appellant/plaintiff applied for water connection for some of her quarters but she was informed that water connection would be given only if the accrued property taxes were paid. The appellant refused to pay the property taxes on the ground that the demand was illegal for the reason that services had not been provided to the locality. The appellant/plaintiff then filed a suit for a declaration and an injunction to the effect that the demand of property taxes was illegal and for an injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from enforcing or demanding such taxes. The suit was resisted by the Karachi Municipal Corporation on the ground that water had been supplied to the quarters and in any case water connections were being given. It was averred that the demand for property taxes was legal and enforceable. As many as 13 issues were framed but the only relevant issues are No, 3 and No, 4.
These issues are as foliows:-- "(3) Are requisite amenities as required under law, being provided by the defendants to the colony since 1951?
(4) Was the action of the defendants in demanding Property Taxes, etc. Without providing necessary services and before water connections could be given to the plaintiff, just ?"
3. At the time of hearing Mr. M. G. Dastgir did not address me on any other issue. The learned Civil Judge answered the issues in favour of the appellant/plaintiff holding that amenities, as required under law, had not been provided by the Corporation to the residents of the colony and that for such reason the respondent/defendant was not entitled to demand or recover property taxes. By such a process of reasoning the suit was decreed in favour of the appellant. An appeal was filed by the respondent defendant, namely. The Karachi Municipal Corporation and the findings of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. It was held that the respondent had a right to recover property tax from the appellant.
4. The appellant had led evidence to prove that there was no drains in the colony, that the colony had not been developed, that the roads and pipelines had been provided by the Colony Society and not by the respondent and the water mains in the Society had been constructed by the Society and not by the Corporation. Several documents were brought on the record most of which were irrelevant or inadmissible. In the trial Court some Ness cuttings were also admitted on the record without realising that such documents were inadmissible. Minutes of some meetings at Ministerial level were also admitted without formal proof. Some correspondence between the persons who were totally strangers to the litigation was also admitted without showing relevancy besides being inadmissible.
5. After the admission of this second appeal the Supreme Court decided the case of Messrs Karimi & Company v. Karachi Municipal Corporation (1). In that case a demand raised by the Karachi Municipal {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1974 SCMR. 440 {{FOOT NOTE}} Corporation in respect of a tax on some shows was resisted on the ground of amenities not having been provided by the Corporation. Their Lordships following an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Hussain D. Silva Enterprises v. Karachi Municipal Corporation Supreme Court Appeal No, R-25 of 1947 (2) considered the question of imposition and recovery of taxes by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. Leading judgment in the case of Messrs Karimi and Comnany was delivered by Mr. Justice Salahuddin Ahmed and my Lord the present Chief Justice of Pakistan (Mr. Justice Anwarul Hague) agreeing with Mr. Justice Salahuddin had also appended a few paragraphs, Although that case pertained to recovery of tax known as "show tax" it has settled the principle that is deducible from that judgment which has been succinctly stated by their Lordships.
Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq in that content observed as follows :- "As a general rule, the validity of the imposition of a municipal tax can be challenged either on the ground that the requisite power has not been conferred on the municipality concerned by the statute or the charter which governs its functions and powers or that the imposition is not for the purposes of the municipality. The challenge cannot, however, be based on the ground that the municipality has failed to carry out its duties and obligations in a certain locality or for the benefit of certain individuals, as Municipal taxation is intended for carrying on the administration of the municipality as a whole. The failure, neglect, or inability of the municipality to perform its functions in a certain locality, comprised within the Municipal area, does not relieve the citizen of his liability to pay Municipal taxes, whose imposition has been authorised by law, as the liability to pay arises on the account of the presence of the citizen, or the property taxed, in the area of the municipality concerned, and not as a quid pro quo for concrete services rendered. The well-established concept underlying the functioning of local Government institutions is that such general taxes are for the collective good of the Municipal community as a whole, and are not to be regarded as being in the nature of payment for particular utilities or services provided by the municipal administration."
6. Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq has however, recognised exceptions in regard to conservancy and water taxes and observed that these taxes are levied only when such amenities are provided. In the same context Mr. Justice Salahuddin also observed that the imposition of a tax would be justified and legal if its proceeds are spent for the performance of statutory duties imposed upon the Corporation. It would appear that the Karachi Municipal Corporation is authorised to collect taxes by reason of its being a Statutory Body entrusted with the functions of providing amenities within the city of Karachi. On the other hand, it would be wrong to state that the residents of particular locality would be relieved of the obligations to pay taxes solely on the ground that some of the obligations cast on the Corporation have not been fulfilled in that particular locality. The reason is obvious. While the Municipal Corporation is under an obligation to develop the city and to provide amenities it has the power of finding priorities and providing the amenities in a phased out programme in one locality after the other. It cannot be said that on a particular day all the roads should be metaled carpet or have bright lights. After all such amenities have to be provided in the long term on the basic requirements and priorities necessary in every locality. Taking any other view, would, in my opinion, tend to create chaos and paralise the functions of the Karachi Municipal Corporation.
7. Property tax is payable on all the immovable properties located within the city of Karachi. It cannot be said that because in a particular locality the houses have no direct water communication pipes the owners of such houses are relieved of the obligation to pay the property tax. The only exception in the case of payment of taxes is as regards conservancy tax and water tax. Such taxes undoubtedly have to be imposed only when amenities contemplated by sections 99 and 100 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act, are provided. On the other hand, section 97 of the said Act clearly states that property taxes shall be payable by every person owning property.
8. As a result of the above discussion I am of the view that the judgment of the learned District Judge, Karachi, is correct and needs no interference. This second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.