R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 Date of Decision : 01.07.2009 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana ...Appellants through its Commissioner and others Versus Raghbir Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for injunction in respect of house-tax?" The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an amount of Rs.36,897.20 on account of arrears of house-tax from the year 1998-99 to 2002-03 by challenging the notice of demand dated 29.10.2002 issued under Section 137 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The plaintiff-respondents are said to be the purchasers of the property from one Parveen Kumar S/o Kasturi Lal vide registered sale deed dated 23.7.1997. The house-tax at the rate of Rs.1247/- per annum was assessed at that time. The same rate of house-tax continued uptill R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 2 2000-01. The house-tax from the year 2001-02 was enhanced to Rs.14560/-. It was alleged that the said house-tax has been enhanced without any notice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs challenged the recovery of house-tax after the date of the purchase of the property, primarily on the ground that the assessment has been framed without any notice to the plaintiffs. It is the stand of the defendant-appellants that the suit property stands assessed to house-tax in the name of Parveen Kumar under Section 105 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The plaintiffs have not furnished copy of any document of change of ownership in the office of the Municipal Corporation. The same is assessed to house-tax for the last 9-10 years in the name of Parveen Kumar. The notice of recovery of house-tax was issued to Parveen Kumar. But since the tax was not deposited, the property has been rightly sought to be attached for recovery of arrears of the house-tax. The learned trial Court recorded a finding that the Municipal Corporation was never informed of purchase of property by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 23.7.1997. It has also been found that since the property was already assessed to house-tax, when the plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of his predecessor Parveen Kumar, therefore, no opportunity was required to be given to the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial Court found that increase of house-tax from Rs.1247/- to Rs.14256/- is without any basis as neither in the written statement nor in the statement before the Court, any basis of the increase of house-tax has been disclosed. On the basis of such finding the suit was decreed. In R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 3 appeal the said decree, has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Munshi Ram and others Vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1250, wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of any matter pertaining to assessment of house-tax. Reference is also made to Kelash Nath Vs. Municipal Committee, Batala AIR 1962 Punjab 389 (Full Bench), Ramesh Kumar and others Vs. The Municipal Committee, Gardaspur and others AIR 1981 P&H 295 (D.B.), M/s Rama Krishna Rice Mills Vs. Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi 1985 (1) P.L.R. 221 (D.B.) and N.D.M.C. Vs. Satish Chand (deceased) by L.R. Ram Chand AIR 2003 S.C. 3187. The Courts below have decreed the suit for the reason that in the written statement or in evidence, the Corporation has not disclosed any basis of increase of house-tax. Whether the house-tax is liable to be increased and to what extent, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Authorities under the Act. Such is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munshi Ram's case (supra), wherein it has been held to the following effect : "23. From a conjoint reading of Sections 84 and 86, it is plain that the Municipal Act, gives a special and particular remedy for the person aggrieved by an assessment of tax under this Act, irrespective of whether the grievance relates to the rate or quantum of tax or the principles of assessment. The Act further provides a particular forum and a specific mode of R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 4 having this remedy which is analogous to that provided in Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. Section 86 forbids in clear terms the person aggrieved by an assessment from seeking his remedy in any other forum or in any other manner than that provided in the Municipal Act. 24. It is well-recognized that where a Revenue Statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded. Construed in the light of this principle, it is clear that Sections 84 and 86 of the Municipal Act bar by inevitable implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where the grievance of the party relates to an assessment or the principle of assessment under this Act." Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.D.M.C.'s case (supra) again reiterated the principle enunciated in Munshi Ram's case (supra). Before this Court a Division bench in M/s Rama Krishna Rice Mills case (supra) considered the earlier judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) and held that in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) the question whether the assessment and competition of house-tax could be challenged in the Civil Court wherein it was held that such challenge is not maintainable before the Civil Court. It was held that challenge before the Civil Court in respect of assessment not made on the basis of fair rent is R.S.A.No.3698 of 2007 5 not maintainable. It was held that merely raising the legality of the assessment order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Though the aforesaid judgments are in respect of Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Muncipal Act, 1911, but the said provisions are pari materia to Sections 146 and 149 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Therefore, the enunciation of law as laid down in above judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case as well. Since the findings recorded by the Courts below are against the principles of law, therefore, such findings are unsustainable. Thus, the substantial question of law as mentioned above is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is accordingly set aside and suit dismissed. 01.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE