JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition for quashing the orders of assessment (Annexures P-3 & P-4), through which the house tax payable by the FCI has been reassessed. 2. The petitioner-Food Corporation of India has various branches in the Districts of Punjab and Haryana. The present issue relates to Faridkot Branch, where the petitioner-Corporation has food storage depot at Kotkapura situated within the limits of Municipal Committee of Kotkapura. The petitioner-Corporation had constructed a godown for storage of food-grains. This godown was located in the territorial limits of Municipal Committee Kotkapura. The godown was assessed to house tax after its completion by the respondent-Committee and the tax of Rs.1,10,640/-was levied on the property by way of house tax being annual rental value of the property. This assessment continued for the year 1986-87. Thereafter, the respondent-Committee issued a notice dated 17.2.1987 under Section 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911(for short 'the Act') proposing to enhance the annual rental value of Rs.28,71,720/-and thus, proposed to levy house tax of Rs.4,30,326/-w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The notice was issued to the petitioner and it was required to file objections to the said notice. 3. The petitioner filed detailed objections before the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Kotkapura, against this order of proposed assessment. As per the petitioner, there was no basis for re-assessment as there was no alteration or addition, which had been made in the property since the date of last assessment. The case set up by the petitioner, thus, was that the assessment could not have been re-opened in absence of alteration or addition made in the property. It is averred that keeping in view the provisions of the Rent Act, assessment could not be revised. 4. The matter was then considered by the Administrator of the respondent-Committee and annual rental value was fixed at Rs.13,82,400/-net besides assessment of the office and the residential quarters at Rs.10,800/-and Rs.8640/-respectively. The earlier assessment by the Committee was made on the basis of 10 paise per bag, whereas the Administrator while partly accepting the objections of the petitioner, raised the annual rental value by enhancing the rent to 16 paise per bag. 5. The earlier assessment by the Committee was made on the basis of 10 paise per bag, whereas the Administrator while partly accepting the objections of the petitioner, raised the annual rental value by enhancing the rent to 16 paise per bag. 5. The petitioner-Corporation, thereafter, filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Committee from recovering house tax on the basis of above-mentioned order, The said suite was dismissed on 19.10.1988 by holding that the house tax was enhanced on account of development of the town and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on 7.4.1989 and the finding of the trial Court was affirmed. 6. The petitioner had also filed an appeal challenging the assessment made in the year 1988-89 on receipt of notice for recovery. The said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 16.8.1989. While rejecting the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, had taken into consideration the observation made by the civil suit, which had dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. It is thus urged that the Civil Court order could not have been so considered. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has made solitary submission to urge that tax could not be enhanced unless there was any alteration or renovation in the building. As per the counsel, the rent was required to be fixed as per Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In support, the counsel has relied upon the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Punjab, 2001 (3) All India Land Laws Reporter 607. 8. The legality of the order amending the assessment was challenged by the Food Corporation of India in this case on the ground that notice was vague and lacked in particulars. It was pleaded that the capacity of the godown remaining the same and there being no change in structure since the last assessment then no cause would arise to revise the rent. Order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, was set aside. 9. The procedure for assessing the immovable property is dealt with under Sections 63 to 68-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Section 63 talks of preparation of assessment list, whereas, Section 64 provides for publication and completion of assessment list. Order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, was set aside. 9. The procedure for assessing the immovable property is dealt with under Sections 63 to 68-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Section 63 talks of preparation of assessment list, whereas, Section 64 provides for publication and completion of assessment list. Section 65 of the Act makes a provision for issuing public notice of time fixed for revising assessment list. Section 66 of Act provides for settlement of lists. Section 67 makes a provision for further amendments of Assessment list. Provisions of Section 68 are relevant for preparation of a new assessment list and provision of Section 68-A makes a provision for amendment of assessment list in certain cases. 10. Section 68-A provides that where the prescribed authority is satisfied that any property has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake, whether on the part of the Committee or of the assessee, it may, after giving to the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, pass an order amending the assessment already made and fixing the amount of tax payable for that property. Upon issue of such order, the assessment list then in force shall, subject to the order, if any, passed in appeal, may deem to have been amended accordingly. 11. This Section is an enabling provision to amend the assessment where the earlier one was done on the basis of fraud, accident or mistake. In addition, section 67 makes provision for amendments of the assessment list. This Section reads as under:- “(1) The committee may 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. (2) Any person interested in any such amendment may tender his objection to the committee in writing before the time, fixed in the notice or orally or in writing at that time, and shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard in support of the same in person or by authorized agent, as he may think fit. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Committee may with a view to give effect to the annual value as modified by the Punjab Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994, amend the assessment list of the year commencing on the first day of April of the relevant year for increasing or reducing annual value of any property and of the assessment thereupon after giving notice at any time to any person affected by the amendment of a period not less than one month from the date of service at which the amendment is to be made and the Committee shall consider any objection made in this regard by any such person and the amended assessment list shall come into force with effect from the first day of April of the year in which notice was given to the person affected.” 12. A perusal of Section 67 would show that the committee may 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 by fraud, accident or mistake, whether on the part of the committee or of the assessee etc. Sub-Section 3 of Section 67, in addition, gives power to the Committee to give effect to the annual value as modified by the Punjab Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994 to amend the assessment list of the year commencing on the first day of April of the relevant year for increasing or reducing annual value of any property and of the assessment thereupon after giving notice at any time to any person affected by the amendment of a period not less than one month from the date of service at which the amendment is to be made. The Committee shall then consider any objection made in this regard by any such person and the amended assessment list shall come into force with effect from the first day of April of the year in which notice was given to the person affected. 13. Apparently, in the present case, the assessment has been done on the basis of increase in the annual value of the property. The petitioner has not contested either the right of the respondent-Committee to carry out reassessment on this basis or the ground on which the rent has been assessed @ 16 paise per bag instead of 10 paise per bag as earlier done. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India's case (supra) has primarily interfered on the ground that the notice was vague and was not specific. The case before the Supreme Court was such, where the property statedly had wrongly been left out from the assessment list whereas it should have been in the same list. Then it was mentioned in the notice that the assessment of the property was assessed less due to inadvertent mistake/fraud or intention, which needs amendment thereby. What was the fraud was not specified. That is not the situation in the present case. The reading of the statutory provision would show that it clearly vests the power in the Committee to amend the assessment list. The Legislature has taken care to specify the circumstances and the grounds on which such amendment may be made. The statute also lays down the manner in which such amendment or revision of the assessment list is to be made. Care has also been taken to comply with the principle of natural justice by making a provision for giving notice to the person, who is likely to be affected by the proposed amendment, giving him a notice of not less than one month to file his objection. As already noticed one of the grounds on which the assessment can be revised or reduced is on the ground of increase or reduction of the annual value of the property. That is the aspect, which has been taken into consideration to order reassessment. This is not a case, where any assessment has been done or the notice issued to the petitioner was vague. That is the aspect, which has been taken into consideration to order reassessment. This is not a case, where any assessment has been done or the notice issued to the petitioner was vague. The ratio of law laid down in Food Corporation of India's case (supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.