CWP No.5869 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5869 of 1990 Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 The Municipal Committee, Giddarbaha …..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. S.C. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is at the instance of the Municipal Committee challenging the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Local Government, dismissing the revision petition filed by the Committee. The proceedings were in relation to property tax for an industrial shed in the occupation of the assessee. While issuing a notice of assessment on 17.02.1989 under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the Executive Authority had determined the annual value of the building in terms of the formula provided under Section 3 (I)(b) of the Municipal Act. He determined the annual value as Rs.11,54,192/- and in reply to the notice issued, the land owners had objections with regard to the assessment made but while disposing of the objection, the municipal committee proceeded to confirm the amount as assessed in the notice and passed an order on 31.03.1989. This order was to be effective for the year 1988-89 that began from 1.04.1988. - CWP No.5869 of 1990 2. The above order was challenged in an appeal to the Collector by the owner namely Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation. The authority felt that the power of the municipal committee to issue a notice to make amendment of the assessment on the assessment list ought to be operative only from a future date and it cannot be retrospective in the manner done by the municipal committee. The Deputy Commissioner therefore held that the revised assessment to be effective from 1.04.1988 was not valid. This order which was challenged by the municipal committee before the Joint Secretary, in revision, was also dismissed. It is this order of dismissal by the Joint Secretary that is in challenge before this Court. 3. The learned counsel refers me to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Indian in case of New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. LIC India, AIR-1977 (SC) 2134 that interpreted the provisions of sub Sections 66 and 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 insofar as it allowed an amendment to the assessment list “at any time”. While holding that even “at any time” must be within reasonable time, the Supreme Court held as follows: 10. If the municipality is expressly given the power by Section 67 to amend an assessment list “at any time” and if in pursuance of that power a list can be amended after it has come into force, it is difficult to appreciate how any extra statutory limitation can be placed upon that power. It may be assumed that the power ought to be exercised with in a reasonable time since, the use of expression of wide amplitude like “at any time” does not exclude the concept of reasonableness. But subject to that consideration, the power of amendment can be exercised even after the expiry of the year for which the list is to remain in - CWP No.5869 of 1990 force. In other words, it is not necessary that the list which was finalized, say one the 31st of March 1963 must, if at all, be amended before the 31St of March, 1964. The list can be amended any time later which means that it can be amended even after the expiry of the 31st of March, 1964. 4. The learned counsel argues that the amendment was being made when a notice was issued on 17.02.1989 which was before the conclusion of the assessment year 1988-89, which was permissible to make it effective from the commencement of that year namely from 01.04.1988. I accept the contention and I find no error in the manner the municipal committee has decided the assessment list in its amended form conforms to the law as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 5. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed, upholding the assessment order. This order does not however reopen the issue of the quantum of assessment as regards the annual value, since there is no contest entered with reference to the assessment as quantified through the impugned order. 28.11.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE -