JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - This order will dispose of two Civil References bearing Nos. 2 and 3 of 2012. However, the facts have been extracted from Civil Reference No.2 of 2012. 2. The matter has been referred for opinion of this Court by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in terms of provisions of Section 93 (2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) 3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner herein, namely, Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar challenging the revised assessment of annual rent of House No.3- 4/2, Mohalla No.2, Jalandhar Cantt. Against the proposed revised assessment of annual rent, objections were filed by the petitioner before the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jalandhar Cantt., which were disposed of without giving him opportunity of hearing. Appeal was filed by the petitioner under Section 93 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and the same has been referred for opinion of this Court. 4. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was that the proper procedure under the Act was not followed before making assessment of the annual rental value for the purpose of levy of revised tax. After hearing both the parties in the appeal, the learned court below vide order dated 12.03.2010, referred the matter for opinion of this Court. This is how the present cases have been placed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure as provided for under Section 76 (3) of the Act has not been followed, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before revising the annual rental value. He further submitted that the very basis for levy of house tax was also challenged. Though learned court below had, prima facie, mentioned in the reference order that the procedure as provided under Section 76 (3) has not been adhered to, but regarding liability of the petitioner to pay tax, nothing has been mentioned therein. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Cantonment Board (for short “the Board”) submitted that due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before revising the annual rental value. Notice was required to be served once and not on each and every date of hearing. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Cantonment Board (for short “the Board”) submitted that due opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before revising the annual rental value. Notice was required to be served once and not on each and every date of hearing. He further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing, but he never availed of the same. He submitted that assessment of annual rental value is strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 8. In the case in hand, in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the demand of revised house tax for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the learned court below had referred the matter for opinion of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2010. The statement of case as referred to this Court by the learned court below is extracted below:- “1. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, the appellant, is aggrieved of enhancement of annual rental value of House No.3-4/2, Mohalla No.2, Jalandhar Cantt. His version is that on receipt of a notice under Section 76 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 proposing enhancement in annual rental value of the building, above said, he filed his objections thereto but his objections were disposed off at his back without affording him with an opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant had raised numerous objections against the manner adopted by the respondent Board but discussion there of is not necessary in view of the manner where under this appeal has been found to be fit to be referred to the Honourable High Court. The short question which has been agitated upon by the parties before this court is compliance or non-compliance of Section 76 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 and its effects. 2. It is admitted case of the respondent that objections to the proposed revision of assessment list were filed by the appellant. From records of proceedings undertaken by the respondent Board it is established that not only objections were so filed by Naresh Kumar Aggarwal but he was once given notice for appearing before the Chief Executive Officer, Jalandhar Cantonment on 12.2.2008 in relation his objections. The matter could not be dealt with on that day as is established from the records. 3. The matter could not be dealt with on that day as is established from the records. 3. I have called for original records of proceedings dated 28.10.2009 to find that objections were decided in the absence of Naresh Kumar Aggarwal. There is no indication available from records of respondent Board that Naresh Kumar Aggarwal was served with notice of hearing of his objections on 25.9.2009. There is no indication, either, of Naresh Kumar Aggarwal being aware of the proceedings of 25.9.2009. 4. Section 76(2) and (3) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 reads as under:- (2) Any objection to a valuation or assessment shall be made in writing to the Chief Executive Officer before the date fixed in the notice, and shall state in what respect the valuation or assessment is disputed, and all objections so made shall be recorded in a register to be kept for the purpose by the Chief Executive Officer. (3)The objections shall be inquired into and investigated, and the persons making them shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard either in person or by authorised agent by the Chief Executive Officer. 5. Viewed thus, Section 76(3), ibid, makes it obligatory for an opportunity of being heard to be provided to the objector, either in person or by authorised agent. Not having adhered to Section 76(3), Supra, it cannot be lawfully argued for the respondent Board that it has gone ahead with the proceedings as per law. 6. Instant appeal has been filed under Section 93 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 and as per Section 93(2), supra, this Court on the hearing of instant appeal entertains reasonable doubt that while enhancing annual rental value of house of the appellant proper procedure, as prescribed by the statute, was not adhered to. In terms of Section 93(2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 the matter deserves to be referred to the Honourable High Court for decision on this point. 7. Reference be sent accordingly to the Honourable High Court along with entire of the case file. A copy of proceedings held in this court be retained for being consigned to the records. In terms of Section 93(2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 the matter deserves to be referred to the Honourable High Court for decision on this point. 7. Reference be sent accordingly to the Honourable High Court along with entire of the case file. A copy of proceedings held in this court be retained for being consigned to the records. Section 93(2) of the Act, under which a reference can be made to this Court is extracted below:- “If the District Court, on the hearing of an appeal under this section, entertains reasonable doubt on any question as to the liability to, or the principle of assessment of, a tax, the Court may, either on its own motion or on the application of the appellant, draw up statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer the statement with its opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court.” 9. A perusal of Section 93 of the Act shows that an appeal against the assessment or levy of, or against the refusal to refund, any tax under this Act lies to the District Court. The same has been explained to be the Principal Civil Court of original territorial jurisdiction over the area in which that cantonment is situated. Under Sub Section (2) of Section 93 of the Act, if the District Court on hearing the appeal entertains reasonable doubt on the question of liability or the principle of assessment of tax, it may either on his own motion or on the application of the appellant, draw up statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained and refer the same for decision of this Court. 10. Apparently, it is exercise of power under Section 93 (2) of the Act, the matter has been referred to this Court for opinion. 11. A perusal of the Chapter V of the Act provides for taxes and fees, which can be imposed by the Cantonment Board. Chapter V of the Act provides that the Board shall, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose the property tax and tax on trades, professions callings and employments. In addition to the aforesaid taxes, the Board may, impose any tax, which may be imposed in any municipality in the State, in which the cantonment is situated. Chapter V of the Act provides that the Board shall, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose the property tax and tax on trades, professions callings and employments. In addition to the aforesaid taxes, the Board may, impose any tax, which may be imposed in any municipality in the State, in which the cantonment is situated. The tax is liable to be revised after every five years. No tax is to be abolished without the prior sanction of the Central Government and it shall not exceed the ceiling prescribed by Clause (2) of Article 276 of the Constitution. 12. Section 67 of the Act provides for levy of different kind of fees. 13. Section 68 of the Act provides that the property tax shall be levied on lands and buildings in the cantonment, which shall not be less than ten and not more than thirty per cent of the annual rateable value of lands and buildings. 14. Section 69 of the Act provides that after the resolution is passed by the Board proposing to impose tax under Section 66, notice thereof shall be published in the manner prescribed under Section 319 of the Act. Notice is to specify the tax, which was proposed to be imposed, the persons or the classes of persons to be made liable to pay the tax, the description of the property or circumstances in respect of which, they are to be made liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the the tax is to be levied. 15. Section 70 of the Act gives right to an inhabitant of the cantonment to file objections to the proposal as published under Section 69 of the Act in writing to the Board. The Board is to take such objections into consideration and pass order by special resolution. Except in the case, where the Board decides to abandon any proposal as contained in the notice published under Section 69 of the Act, entire record regarding proposals, objections received together with opinion thereon has to be submitted to the Central Government. 16. Section 71 of the Act provides that the Central Government may authorize the Board to impose the tax either in the original form or in the modified form, in case any objection is submitted. 17. 16. Section 71 of the Act provides that the Central Government may authorize the Board to impose the tax either in the original form or in the modified form, in case any objection is submitted. 17. Section 72 of the Act provides that Central Government may issue certain directions to the Board to impose any tax, which it is empowered to impose under the Act or enhance existing tax for securing adequate financial provision for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions of the Board. However, no such directions can be issued without giving the Board and the inhabitants of the cantonment area, an opportunity of showing cause against the directions issued and to consider objections of Board and inhabitants. If once tax is imposed, no modification or abolition by Board can be done without sanction of Central Government which are subject to modification. 18. Section 73 of the Act provides for annual rateable value for the purpose of levy of annual tax in terms of Section 68 of the Act. 19. Section 74 of the Act provides for incidence of taxation. If tax assessed on annual rateable value is of the owner of building and land the tax should be levied primarily on actual occupier of the property. In any other case the tax should be primarily leviable on: if the property is let, upon the lessor; if the property is sub-let, upon the superior lessor; and if the property is unlet, upon the person in whom the right to let the same vests. 20. Section 75 of the Act provides that the assessment list of the lands and buildings in the cantonment on which taxes have been imposed is required to be prepared by Chief Executive Officer in such form as the Central Government may by rules prescribe. 21. Section 76 of the Act empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the Board to consider the valuation and assessments entered in the assessment list and in all cases in which any property is to be assessed for the first time, it provides for issuance of written notice thereof to the owner and to any lessee or occupier of the property. Any objection received against the proposal is to be heard and decided. Objections so filed are to be heard by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. 22. Any objection received against the proposal is to be heard and decided. Objections so filed are to be heard by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. 22. Section 77 of the Act provides that the assessment list is to be authenticated by the Chief Executive Officer and the President of the Cantonment Board. 23. Section 79 of the Act enables the Chief Executive Officer to amend the assessment list at any time after approval of the President of the Cantonment Board under the specified circumstances. 24. Chief Executive Officer is duty bound to prepare a fresh assessment list at least once in three years under Section 80 of the Act. 25. Sections 84 to 88 of the Act provide for remission of tax. 26. In terms of Section 89 of the Act, the tax assessed shall be a first charge upon the building or land subject to the prior payment of the land-revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon. 27. Sections 90 to 92 of the Act provide for levy on goods, octroi, terminal tax and toll tax. 28. Section 93 (1) of the Act provides that an appeal against the assessment or levy of, or against the refusal to refund, any tax under this Act shall lie to the District Court. Explanation of the aforesaid Act provides that the District Court in relation to a cantonment would mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction having jurisdiction over the area, in which that cantonment is situated. It shall include such other Civil Courts having jurisdiction over that area as notified by the Central Government in this behalf in consultation with High Court having jurisdiction over the area. 29. A perusal of the scheme of the Act, if considered in its totality, in my opinion, the word used in Section 93 (2) of the Act “the Court may, either in its own motion or on the application of the appellant” has to be interpreted to mean that such power has to be exercised in rare cases. The same is merely an enabling provisions which can and should be used sparingly, where, complicated questions of law arises, which could not be decided by the District Court. Otherwise in terms of Section 93 (2) of the Act, the District Court is competent to decide an appeal in any manner in accordance with law. 30. The same is merely an enabling provisions which can and should be used sparingly, where, complicated questions of law arises, which could not be decided by the District Court. Otherwise in terms of Section 93 (2) of the Act, the District Court is competent to decide an appeal in any manner in accordance with law. 30. Word “may” used in Section 93 (2) is not to be read as a mandate. 31. The reference otherwise also under Section 93 (2) of the Act to this Court can be only be on a question of law or on the principle of assessment of tax and not for any other matter. If the order passed by the learned court below in the present case is perused, it only refers to the fact that under the procedure of Section 76 (3) of the Act proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before deciding the objections filed by the Chief Executive Officer. The District Court or any of the District Judges, to whom the appeal filed under the Act is assigned, is fully competent and trained to decide the points of facts and law involved in the appeal. Petty matters in routine are not required to be sent to this Court for opinion. 32. In view of my aforesaid discussions, in my opinion, the reference of the dispute to this Court is totally incompetent. It is within the competence of the District Court to hear and decide the appeal on merits. The matter is remitted back to District Judge, Jalandhar. 33. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 30.11.2013 for further proceedings. The District Judge may either keep the appeals with him or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The record of the case be sent back. 34. The references stand disposed of.