CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) C. W. P. No. 4753 of 1991 Parshotam Dass ....Petitioner v. The Municipal Committee, Samana & anr. ....Respondents ... (2) C. W. P. No. 4754 of 1991 M/s.Janki Dass Rice Factory and another ....Petitioners v. The Municipal Committee, Samana & anr. ....Respondents ... (3) C. W. P. No. 4755 of 1991 Sham Lal ....Petitioner v. The Municipal Committee, Samana ....Respondent ... (4) C. W. P. No. 4756 of 1991 M/s.Singla Rice Mills and another ....Petitioners v. The Municipal Committee, Samana ....Respondent Date of Decision : 30 – 6 – 2010 CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.R..L.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in all the writ petitions. None for respondent No.1. Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common judgment, four writ petitions bearing Civil Writ Petition Nos.4753, 4754, 4755 and 4756 of 1991 shall be decided together. In these writ petitions, Municipal Committee, Samana, District Patiala has been impleaded as respondent and challenge is to the orders whereby house tax was enhanced. It will be necessary to give brief facts of each case. CWP No.4753 of 1991 The present writ petition has been preferred by Parshotam Dass. On 30.11.1989, Municipal Committee, Samana – respondent No.1 issued notice that annual rental value of House No.118 for the year 1989-90, of which Parshotam Dass was owner, has been assessed at Rs.33,480/-. It was stated in the notice that petitioner ought to pay Rs.5022/- as house tax and after deducting the amount of Rs.2160/-, he is liable to pay Rs.2862/-. The objections were invited from the petitioner. On 27.3.1990 Parshotam Dass filed the objections. After considering the objections, annual rental value was assessed at Rs.33,480/- and after deducting 10% depreciation, it came to Rs.28,080/- and the enhanced amount demanded was reduced from Rs.2,860/- to Rs.2,052/-. An appeal was filed against this order. The CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [3] Appellate Authority upheld the order, Annexure P2, vide order dated 12.7.1990, Annexure P4. CWP No.4754 of 1991 In this writ petition, quashing of order dated 27.3.1990, Annexure P1, has been sought whereby demand of Rs.2565/- was raised after deducting Rs.3,375/- already deposited. The house tax levied was Rs.5,940/-. This order was challenged in appeal. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.1990, Annexure P3. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the present writ petition Parshotam Dass took the same objections which were taken by him in Civil Writ Petition No.4753 of 1991. CWP No.4755 of 1991 In the present writ petition, order dated 27.3.1990, Annexure P1, has been assailed whereby Municipal Committee, Samana had assessed the house tax at Rs.2,875.50 and after deducting the amount of Rs.1,053/- already deposited, made demand of Rs.1,822.50. This order was also challenged in appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of enhancement. In this case, the objections were filed by Sham Lal brother of Parshotam Dass. CWP No.4756 of 1991 In the present writ petition, annual rental value was reduced from Rs.1,08,897.75 to Rs.44,000/- and after giving the rebate of depreciation of 10%, it was reduced to Rs.39,600/- and the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.5,940/- as house tax. This amount was settled after Sham Lal Singla appeared and had filed the objections. Mr.R.L.Gupta, counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions has raised the following submissions:- CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [4] (a) It is submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners. Only objections were filed and they were decided in absence of the petitioners. A specific ground to this effect was taken in the grounds of appeal annexed with all the writ petitions. (b) It is submitted that assessment order is not a speaking order. (c) It is submitted that in the notices issued for enhancement of the house tax, petitioners were not acquainted with the grounds specified in Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, `the Act'). Referring to Section 67 of the Act, counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the Municipal authorities to specifically state as to why house tax is to be enhanced. As per Section 67 of the Act, the Municipal Committee can enhance the house tax which has been been valued erroneously and assessment was made through fraud, accident or mistake. Counsel has referred to notice, Annexure P1, attached with Civil Writ Petition No.4753 of 1001 and stated that all the four grounds were mentioned in the notice but no specific ground was high-lighted or was mentioned as the ground, which is attracted in the case of the petitioners. (d) It is submitted that annual rental value was not calculated on the basis of fair rent. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It will be pertinent to notice that all assessment orders were passed on 27.3.1990. One such order, as passed in Civil Writ Petition No.4754 of 1991 is reproduced below:- “Today on 27.3.1990, Shri Parshotam Dass son of Shri Janki Dass, partner in the Firm M/s.Janki Rice Mills, Samana presented objections in person to the effect that I am earlier CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [5] depositing Rs.3375/- as per D.C.R.S.No.205. The recent assessment is excessive and be reduced. The file was presented and record perused. The annual rental value of the property assessed at Rs.99,411/75 is reduced to Rs.44,000/-. 18% building depreciation is deducted and hence it comes to Rs.39,600/- and @ 15% the house tax amounting to Rs.5940/- is levied. The bill of Rs.2565/- be issued after deducting the amount of Rs.3375/- already deposited.” It is an admitted case that on the day when objections were filed, the same were decided on that day. It is clearly specified in the orders that objections were filed in person and thereafter contention of the petitioners was noticed. Once order is passed in presence of the petitioners, after noticing their contentions, it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not afforded. In all these four writ petitions, at the cost of repetition, it is stated that all the orders were passed on the same day, contention was noticed and rejected. Further more, the assessment of the house tax is a summary procedure. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals due application of mind of the concerned authority. Therefore, there is no requirement that a speaking order should have been passed in the cases which are to be decided in a summary manner. Furthermore, considering the objections, the amount of the house tax was reduced in each case and annual rental value mentioned in the notices was also reduced. Thus, the authorities gave due consideration to the objections raised by the petitioners. Whenever authority follow summary procedure, requirement of CWP Nos.4753 to 4756 of 1991 [6] law is that order should reflect application of mind. It is not necessary that order should be speaking one. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Budh Ram v. Municipal Committee, Mansa and another, 2005(2) PLR 63 to contend that in case notice does not specify the ground which called for enhancement, notice is bad. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is not attracted in the facts of the present case. In that case, objections were not filed and were not dealt with. Para 11 of the aforesaid judgment shows that son of the petitioner in that case had agreed to the assessment and the petitioner was not present. In the present case, petitioners had filed the objections in person, they were considered and the relief which was due was granted to the petitioners. Furthermore, in two writ petitions, appeals were filed and the Appellate Authority had upheld the orders of enhancement. The impugned order states that after perusal of the record, rental value was assessed. Therefore, this amounts to fair rent. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present writ petitions are dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) June 30, 2010. JUDGE RC