CWP No. 11208 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11208 of 2009
Date of decision 29.7.2009
Rattan Lal Jain ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. N.K.Suneja,Advocate for the petitioner
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The instant petition is directed against order dated 29.8.2006
(P.5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala
dismissing the appeal filed under Section 146 of the Punjab Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 (for brevity ‘the Act’). In the appeal, the petitioner
has challenged House Tax Bill No. 30817 dated 11.10.2004 in respect of
property No. 3300 situated in Chhotti Baradari, Patiala for the year 2004-05.
After considering the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner and hearing
counsel for the respondent the Commissioner found that repeated absence of
the counsel for the petitioner was not bonafide as the petitioner was
interested in continuing with the litigation in order to avoid the payment of
the amount in dispute on one pretext or the other. It is pertinent to notice
CWP No. 11208 of 2009 2
that no appeal could be filed under Section 146 of the Act without
depositing the amount of tax. The Commissioner further found that
deduction has been given in the rate after hearing the assessee and the order
was passed by the consent of the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Suneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner from
the Improvement Trust. In that regard he has placed reliance on a document
dated 3.11.1980 issued by the Patiala Improvement Trust, Patiala showing
the rate at which the property was allotted in a development scheme,
Chhotti Baradari. On that basis the argument raised is that as long as the
property remains under the control of the Improvement Trust, the Municipal
Council or Municipal Corporation cannot have any jurisdiction to assess the
property for the purposes of house tax. He has also argued that no
opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and the order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner is in flagrant violation of the
principles of natural justice.
Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the paper book
we are of the view that the instant petition does not merit admission and is
liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has placed on record an order dated
19.3.2004 whereby the property belonging to the petitioner was assessed for
the purposes of house tax by the House Tax Sub Committee. The Sub
Committee after hearing counsel for the petitioner has released the rate of
house tax. It has been found that the total area as per the office report is 465
Sq. yd. and covered area is 4275 sq. ft. The market value of the land has
been assessed at Rs. 12,000/- sq. yds and Rs. 325/- sq. ft. The aforesaid
estimation is based on the explanation tendered by Area Inspector
CWP No. 11208 of 2009 3
regarding quality of construction. Accordingly total valuation of the unit
was assessed and rental value at the rate of 5% of the cost was arrived at
Rs. 3,41,522/- p.a. On the basis of the aforesaid order of assessment bill
dated 11.10.2004 was prepared and sent. The order of assessment has
attained finality and there is no challenge to the aforesaid order. Only House
Tax Bill dated 11.10.2004 has been challenged before the Commissioner
which inevitably is based on the order of assessment dated 19.3.2004.
Therefore, we find that the order of the Divisional Commissioner does not
suffer from legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
The argument of the learned counsel that the Improvement
Trust continues to control the property does not have any basis and remains
unsubstantiated. The only reliance by the counsel for the petitioner was on
the order dated 24.5.2006 which is an order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner where the property was found to be under the Control of the
Improvement Trust. But the property herein could not be shown, either
before this Court or before the Commissioner, to be under the control of the
Improvement Trust. In any case, we are not able to appreciate how the
property allotted on 3.11.1980 could continue to be controlled by the
Improvement Trust.
The other argument that principles of natural justice have been
violated has also not impressed us because it is prepasetrous to say that
opportunity of hearing was not given. The petitioner was given repeated
opportunities but he failed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner.
His absence before the Divisional Commissioner was not bona-fide.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition.
For the reasons aforesaid this petition fails and the same is
CWP No. 11208 of 2009 4
dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Jaswant Singh)
29.7.2009 Judge
okg