Notified Area Committee, Uchana vs Dhanpat Rai

A.S. Nehra, J.

The plaintiffrespondent brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendantappellant from realising the house tax alleged to be assessed on the plaintiff for the period from 1.4.1966 to 31.3.1973 and 1.4.1973 to 3.3.1974 under Notification No. 6688 ICI66/23337 dated 5.8.1966. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is the owner and occupier of the building and the rented property situated within the local limits of the Notified Area Committee, Uchana. He also alleged that notice was not issued regarding the making of assessment of the house tax and that he was never given a chance to file objections. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendantappellant, without hearing the plaintiffrespondent, has imposed the housetax. The plaintiff also alleged that he never received the bills dated 5.2.1972 and 12.4.1974 for realizing the housetax. It was prayed by the plaintiffrespondent that the act of the defendantappellant is not at all fair and it is against the law and the order of the Municipal Committee is null and void. The plaintifrespondent further stated in the plaint that, first of all, assessment list is prepared under Section 63 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and then objections are to be heard by the Committee and, after hearing the objections, housetax is imposed, but no such formalities were observed; that in the absence of the plaintiff, the whole proceedings were taken by the defendantappellant and the bills which were sent for the recovery are false and baseless; the that no recovery of the said bills can be made from the plaintiffrespondent. The defendantappellant appeared and contested the suit and contended that the allegations of the plaintiffrespondent are false and baseless; that a notice was issued to the plaintiff and an assessment list was prepared, that the objections of the plaintiff were heard and after hearing the objections, the housetax was imposed; and that the notice for recovery of house tax was issued after completing all the formalities. It was also contended by the defendantappellant that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

Whether the assessment of the housetax of the property of the plaintiff is illegal and void on the grounds alleged in para No. 7 of the plaint ?

Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ?

Whether no proper Courtfee has been paid by the plaintiff ?

Relief.

The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff respondent and the suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffrespondent aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.1.1977 passed by the SubJudge Ist Class, Narwana, filed an appeal before the Senior Sub Judge Jind. The appeal filed by the plaintiffrespondent was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was sent aside.

Notification Exhibit D1 issued under Section 62A read with Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is as under :

"No. 93513CI 63/40553 Whereas the revenue of the Municipal Committee; Uchana, in the Sangrur District is not adequate for meeting the increased expenditure on various development plans and providing better amenities to the residents of Uchana Municipality and it is necessary to tap fresh resources to augment its income.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 62A read with Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act 6, 1911 (Act No. III of 1911), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the said Committee shall, subject to the following exemptions levy the tax under subclause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (ii) of Section 61 of the said Act at the rate of 71/2 per cent on the annual value of buildings and lands within the Municipality of Uchana with a rebate of 20 per cent of the tax in case the tax is paid within a period of ten days from the date of delivery of the bill of demand and shall forward its proposals to that effect so as to reach the Govt. within a period of three months from the date of the order, falling which action will be taken by the Government to enforce this direction in the manner contemplated by subsection (3) of Section 62A of the said Act........"

Both the learned lower Courts have not taken into consideration the Notification Exhibit D1 while deciding the case. The notification was issued under Section 62A of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his case, has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shri Krishan Kumar Sanan and others v. The Punjab State and another, 1972 Punjab Law Reporter 149, wherein it has been held :

"In case of failure of a Municipal Committee to impose tax upon its residents under Section 61 of the Act, it is entirely in the discretion of the State Government, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to take action under subsection (1) of Section 62A if it deems necessary to do so. Its judgment of the situation necessitating the taking of that action is binding and conclusive not only on a Municipal Committee but also upon those rendered liable to pay the tax proposed to be imposed. There is no doubt that if tax to be imposed under Section 61 of the Act by a Municipal Committee the procedure pertaining to the issue of the notices and inviting of objections from those, who are to be made liable to pay tax, has to be gone through. By virtue of the portion "and as if the proposal was sanctioned in accordance with the procedure contained in Section 62" of subsection (3) of Section 62A of the Act, there has been dispensed with the necessity of complying with the procedure devised by Section 62 of the Act. That procedure is meant for a Municipal Committee and not for the State Government, when the latter exercises its power for imposition of tax by a notification issued under subsection (3) of Section 62A of the Act."

In view of the notification Exhibit D1, it was not necessary to issue notice to the plaintiffrespondent and the Municipal Committee was not under an obligation to invite objections for the assessment of the housetax. The finding of the lower appellate Court on issue No. 1 is set aside.

The trial Court decided issue No. 2 in favour of the defendantappellant. Since there was no illegality or irregularity in imposing house tax on the plaintiffrespondent, therefore, the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The finding of the lower appellate Court on issue No. 2 is also set aside. The appeal filed by the defendantappellant is allowed with costs and the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent is dismissed.