Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 Date of decision : 22.01.2010 Rattan Lal (through his legal heirs impleaded vide order dated 06.05.2008 passed in C.M. No. 8546 of 2008) ....Petitioner V/s Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the assessment order regarding rent of the shop of petitioner made by Municipal Committee, Nabha and also to quash the order dated 27.05.1988 Annexure P-3, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (respondent No. 1). The petitioner is owner of shop situated near Devi Dawala Chowk, Nabha, District Patiala. Earlier to year 1987-88, the property in dispute was assessed at annual rental value at Rs. 1800/- and annual tax at Rs. 243/- P.A. In the year 1987-88, the annual rental value of the property in dispute was raised to Rs. 15,000/-. On the representation made by the petitioner, annual rental value of the property was reduced to Rs. 9,000/- and tax of Rs. 1296 was levied. Bill No. 78 dated 07.01.1988 Annexure P-2 was issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 1296/- as house tax pursuant to assessment of house tax made by the concerned authority. Aggrieved by Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 2 the bill issued by the Municipal Committee, Nabha, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. The Deputy Commissioner upheld the assessment made and observed that proper procedure had been followed in making the assessment and the same had been rightly arrived at. This apart, he observed that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the bill dated 07.01.1988. He did not challenge the assessment order dated 25.03.1987 despite the fact that notice was given to the assesse and his representative appeared before the assessing authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was thus, dismissed. The petitioner has impugned the said order in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex court reported as Municipal Committee Patiala Vs. Model Town Residents Association & others 2007(3) ACJ 001(SC) and has submitted that in view of the same assessment of house tax could not be beyond 10% of the annual value which was already fixed. In the alternative, he has raised the plea that procedure as prescribed for assessment of house tax on the basis of fair rent under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act was not followed. Mr. Sandhawalia has however, disputed the fact that the instant case is covered by the judgment in Model Town Residents Association's case (supra). According to him, the said judgment relates to an amendment carried out in the Punjab Municipal Act in the year 1994 and the assessment in the instant case relates to the years 1987-88. Thus, the un-amended Act would be applicable in the facts of this case. He, further submits that challenge to Bill, Annexure P-2 was made on the ground that the assessment was not correctly made by determining fair rent in terms of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, is misconceived as assessment order is not under Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 3 challenge. According to the counsel, the petitioner was present before the concerned authority when the assessment order was passed. In fact on his representation, the annual rental value of the property was reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 9600/- and tax of Rs. 1296 P.A. was levied on the property in question. He has thus, referred to reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee and submitted that property in occupation is situated in the heart of the city and rents are reasonably high in the shopping complex. According to him, the rental value assessed is totally justified as the same has been assessed keeping in view the annual rental value of the building. According to him, other shops situated in the complex are fetching approximately same annual rental value. He has also referred to para 10 of his reply and submitted that provisions of Punjab Municipal Act and East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 were kept in view while assessing the annual rental value of the property. However, assessment order was never challenged by the petitioner. According to him, in the instant case the petitioner never avail the remedy of appeal under Section 84 of the Act against the assessment order. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thoughts to the facts of the case. It is clear that in the year 1994 an amendment was carried out in the Act and option was given to the owner to opt for the procedure prescribed in Section 3(1)(b) or to increase the house tax by 10% of the annual value already fixed. This amendment was made applicable in the year 1994 and upheld by Apex Court in Model Town Residents Association's case (supra). I find force in submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that assessment in the instant case pertains to Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 4 year 1987-88 and thus, the amended provision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute this fact. Under the circumstances, learned counsel prays for his alternative plea that annual rental value should have been assessed in terms of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to him, even procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed by the assessment authority. However, I do not find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The assessment order was on 25.03.1987 and the petitioner did not avail of any remedy of appeal against the said order. Having accepted the order, the petitioner could not challenge the same when the bill, Annexure P-2 was issued for recovery of the house tax already assessed. In fact in the petition itself it has been stated that the petitioner filed a representation before the assessment authority against the annual rental value of the property determining at Rs. 15,000/-. The assessment authority acting on the said representation reduced the same to Rs. 9,600/- P.A. and assessed the house tax accordingly. Admittedly the assessment order was never challenged. Even extract from the assessment registrar is on record as Annexure P-4 and Para 10 whereof reads thus:- 10. Final assessment : ordered by the committee after hearing the objection Vide order of the Executive officer of the Municipal committee, the assessment for the year 1987-88 was reduced to 9,600 from 15,000/- Resolution No. 40. dated 25.03.1987 It is thus, clear that assessment of the property was reduced by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Nabha and the petitioner accepted the same. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No. 6687 of 1988 5 not been able to show that procedure as prescribed under the Punjab Muncipal Act, 1911 was not followed by the concerned authority at the time of assessment of annual rental value of the property and house tax payable thereon. No other point has been urged for quashing of the impugned order. In my considered view the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. January 22, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE