Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 92 (PNJ)

Mohan Singh v. Municipal Committee

2004-01-28

G.S.SINGHVI

body2004
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. (28th January, 2004) - This is a petition for quashing order dated 27.10.1983 passed by House Tax Sub Committee of Municipal Committee, Sangrur (respondent No. 1) determining the annual value of the petitioners property for the purpose of levy of house tax and order dated 8.3.1984 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sangrur, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act). 2. The petitioner owns shop measuring 20 square yards and property bearing No. B-1/164 situated within the municipal limits of Sangrur. According to him, the annual rental value of the property was assessed in 1979 at Rs. 1,600/- and on this basis, he paid the house tax for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 on 10.8.1981 and 22.6.1982 respectively. After one year and two months, the Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 24.8.1983 to the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act proposing the revision of annual value of his property. He filed detailed objections vide reply dated 22.9.1983 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, vide order dated 27.10.1983 (Annexure P3), the House Tax Sub Committee of respondent No. 1 revised the annual value of his property and fixed it at Rs. 3,600/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sangrur vide order dated 8.3.1984 (Annexure P5). 3. The petitioner has questioned the legality of the impugned orders mainly on the ground that while revising the annual value of his property, the House Tax Sub Committee did not consider the objections contained in Annexure P2 and the Appellate Authority ignored the plea taken by him that the provision of Section 67(1) of the Act was not applicable to his case. 4. The respondents have not filed written statement to controvert the averments contained in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Shri Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Battas, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. Section 67(1) of the Act, which provides for further amendments of assessment list, reads as under: "67. 4. The respondents have not filed written statement to controvert the averments contained in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Shri Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Battas, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. Section 67(1) of the Act, which provides for further amendments of assessment list, reads as under: "67. Further Amendments of Assessment List.- (1) The committee may at any time amend the list by inserting the name of any person whose name ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any property which ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by altering the assessment on any property which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake, whether on the part of the committee or of the assessee, or in the case of tax payable by the occupier by a change in the tenancy, after giving notice to any person affected by the amendment, of a time, not less than one month from the date of service at which the amendment is to be made." 7. A reading of the provision reproduced above shows that the Municipality can, amend the amendment list at any time by inserting the name of any person whose name had been omitted earlier or by inserting any property which was earlier not included in the assessment list or by altering the assessment on any property which had been earlier erroneously valued or assessed on account of fraud, accident or mistake had been committed by the Committee or the assessee or there is a change in the tenancy. To put it differently, the Municipality can revise the assessment list in either of the contingencies specified, in Section 67(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 8. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that neither the House Tax Sub Committee nor the Appellate Authority directed its attention to the requirement of Section 67(1) of the Act. The House Tax Sub Committee did not even advert to the objections raised by the petitioner to the proposed revision of assessment. The Appellate Authority did take cognizance of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner but did not deal with the issue relating to applicability of Section 67(1) of the Act. The House Tax Sub Committee did not even advert to the objections raised by the petitioner to the proposed revision of assessment. The Appellate Authority did take cognizance of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner but did not deal with the issue relating to applicability of Section 67(1) of the Act. Therefore, it must be held that the revised assessment made by the House Tax Sub Committee is ultra vires to Section 67(1) of the Act and the appellate order is vitiated by an error of law on the face of the record. In view of the above conclusion, I do not consider it necessary to deal with other points raised in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexure P3 and P5 are declared illegal and quashed. However, liberty is given to the House Tax Sub Committee of respondent No. 1 to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and by assigning cogent reasons.