CWP No.11991 of 1989 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of decision: 09.07.2009
Municipal Committee, Faridkot ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissinoer, Faridkot and others .. Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.RL Gupta,Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Petitioner, Municipal Committee, Faridkot, passed order for
assessment of the House Tax on 27.03.1987 in respect to the properties
belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3. After making the assessment, an
amount of Rs.1, 09,350/- has been assessed as rental value after giving ten
per cent of the rebate in respect to respondent No.3. Similarly, Rs.48,600/-
was assessed as rental value of the property in respect of respondent No.2.
Aggrieved of the aforesaid assessment, respondent No.2, i.e Punjab State
Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited filed an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, disputing the levy of House
Tax. The Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 14.12.1988,
Annexure P-2,accepted the appeal partly and the House Tax levied upon
respondent No.2 has been affirmed. However, the house tax assessed for
respondent No.3 has been revised. It has been ordered that previous
assessment in respect to Lok Sewak Cooperative Marketing Society
Limited, Faridkot, shall be maintained instead of the new assessment.
CWP No.11991 of 1989 :2:
It is against the aforesaid condition that the Municipal
Committee has filed the present writ petition challenging the order
datede14.12.1988, Annexure P-2, passed by the Appellate Authority. The
only contention raised in the present petition is that against the order of
assessment passed by the Municipal Committee dated 27.03.1987 only one
appeal was filed by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing
Federation Ltd. i.e respondent No.2 and no appeal was preferred by
respondent No.3, but the Appellate Authority while affirming the
assessment made in respect of respondent No.2 i.e. the appellant before it,
set aside the assessment made in respect of respondent No.3.
I have perused the impugned order Annexure P-2. It is evident
that only respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal challenging the
imposition of House Tax upon its property. The Appellate Authority,
however, has set aside the assessment made in respect to respondent No.3 as
well without there being any appeal on its behalf. It is also relevant to note
that respondent No.3 was not even a party before the Appellate Authority in
the aforesaid appeal and inspite of that the Appellate Authority interfered
with the assessment made in respect to property of respondent No.3.
None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and
this petition has been heard in their absence.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that there is substance
in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
Appellate Authority had no right to interfere in the assessment in respect to
respondent No.3 who choose not to file any appeal nor even appeared
before the appellate authority. Even respondent No.3 was not even a party
CWP No.11991 of 1989 :3:
before the Appellate Authority. The impugned order is, thus, not
sustainable in law to the extent it has interfered with the order of assessment
relating to the property of respondent No.3.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 14.12.1988, Annexure P-2, is hereby quashed to the
extent mentioned above. No costs.
09.07.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI)
BLS JUDGE
CWP No.11991 of 1989 :4: