ORDER G.C. Mathur, J.
1. By a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated April 21, 1928, the District Board, Muzaffarnagar, imposed circumstances and property tax on persons ordinarily residing or carrying on business in the rural areas of the district of Muzaffarnagar. The notification also prescribed the rates at which this tax was to be levied. There is no dispute that the tax was in its inception, properly and legally imposed. On August 23. 1958, the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958, was published in the U.P. Gazette. This Act replaced the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance, 1958. Under the Ordinance and the Act, all district boards in U.P. and ail committees of such boards ceased to function from May 1. 1958, and all members and fee Presidents of such boards and all members of such committees were deemed to have vacated their respective offices.
So long as the Antarim Zila Parishad was not constituted for a district, the Collector was to take over the administration of the affairs of the board and io exercise, perform and discharge the powers, functions and duties of the board, the President and committees of the board. By a notification dated May 29, 1958, the Antarim Zila Parishad of Muzaffarnagar District and certain other districts was constituted. The Antarim Zila Parishad proposed to assess the petitioner to a circumstances and property tax amounting to Rs. 750 on an income of Rs 36,000. A notice was sent to him which was received and acknowledged by the petitioner's father. Sri Asa Ram. No objection was filed by the petitioner and, by an order dated February 7, 1961, the Tax Officer of the Antarim Zila Parishad assessed the petitioner to a tax of Rs. 750 for the year 1960-61. Against this order the petitioner had a right to file an appeal but he did not file any such appeal. He has challenged the validity of the assessment order by way of this writ petition.
2. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is the main contention in the case, is that the Antarim Zila Parishad could not continue the circumstances and property tax which had been imposed by the District Board. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to Section 6 of the Antarim Zila Parishad Act which provides for the consequ ences of the constitution of Antarim Zila Parishads. According to him, there is no provision either in this section or in any other Section of the Act which specifically provides that the circumstances and property tax imposed by the District Board shall be continued to be levied by the Antarim Zila Parishad. According to him in the absence of any such provision, it is not lawful for the Antarim Zila Parishad to levy the circumstances and property tax. The con tention is not sound.
It has to be noticed in the first place that the Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance and Act were promulgated and enacted to provide for the establishment of Antarim Zila Parishads for the interim administration of the Local-self Government in rural areas to facilitate the establishment of Zila Parishads. Then it has to be noticed that the U.P. District Boards Act was not repealed and continued to remain in force. The Antarim Zila Parishad Act replaced what may be called the management under the U.P. District Boards Act. In place of the District Boards, the committees thereof, and the President of the board, the Antarim Zila Parishad and the Collector were to function. They were to exercise all the powers, functions and duties of the board, its committees and its President: but these new functionaries were to function under the District Boards Act which continued in force. Since the U.P District Boards Act remained in force, all notifications, rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder also remained in force until they were amended, replaced or cancelled by the appropriate authorities.
It would have been necessary to make provision for the continuance of notifications etc. under the District Boards Act only if the U.P District Boards Act had been repealed. Since the U.P, District Boards Act remained in force and all notifications etc. made there under also remained in force, there was no necessity at all to provide for the continuance of the notifications etc. made thereunder or to make any specific provision for the continuance of any tax imposed under a notification issued under the U.P. District Boards Act. In my opinion, the notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated April 21, 1928, did not cease to be operative Upon the passing of the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act. 1958, and it continued to remain in force. It was, therefore, open to the Antarim Zila Parishad to assess the petitioner to circumstance and property tax under that notification.
3. The second ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two cane crushers, by which he carried on the business of manufacturing Khandsari and the income of which business has been assessed to circumstances and property tax, were situate within the limits of the Town Area, Jalalabad, and were not situate within the area of the Antarim Zila Parishad. In his order, the Tax Officer has held that the two cane crushers were situate beyond the limits of the Town Area, Jalalabad. This is a finding of fact which cannot roe allowed to be challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner could only have challenged this finding of fact if he had preferred an appeal against the order of the Tax Officer; but he has not done so. Now he is not entitled to challenge this finding of fact.
4. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case was covered by the proviso contained in the notification imposing the circumstances and property tax. This, again, was a question which could and ought to have been raised either before the Tax Officer or in the appeal against the order of the Tax Officer. The petitioner has not done so. Whether the proviso is applicable or not depends upon certain questions of fact. These facts cannot be investigated in this writ petition.
5. The last contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no service upon him of the notice of the proposal to assess him to circumstances and property tax. The order of the Tax Officer shows that a proper notice was sent and was acknowledged by the petitioner's father. This service has been accepted as sufficient by the Tax Officer. The question whether the service was sufficient or not was again a question which the petitioner should have raised by filing an appeal against the order of the Tax Officer. This Court cannot now go into this question in its writ jurisdiction. On the face of it, fee service appears to be good and sufficient service.
6. There is no force in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Respondent No. 1 will be entitled to its costs of this petition from the petitioner.