CWP No.7895 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7895 of 1990 Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 Punjab State Cooperative Supplies and Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.2. K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. This writ petition challenges the assessment to property tax made by the Municipal Committee. The counsel who has appeared for the petitioner has since moved to the Bench of this Court but the petitioner has not made any alternative arrangement for all these years. The case is of the year 1990 and the petitioner ought to have taken appropriate steps to engage any other counsel. Since the case is old, I propose to dispose of the case on merits on the basis of records and with the assistance of the counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The matter related to the assessment of the annual value for the purpose of determining the tax for the year 1990-92. While assessing the annual value, the municipal committee took the assessment which had been - CWP No.7895 of 1990 earlier made at Rs.11,54,192/- but accepted the land owner’s contentions that the property was comprised of several parcels of land in different khasra numbers that included the property at Sr. Nos.12, 15, 18 which did not fall within the municipal limits. He applied therefore, a differential valuation and provided for a deduction of Rs.2,94,398/- from out of the annual value determined for the previous assessment namely at Rs.11,54,192/- and took the net annual value at Rs.8,59,794/-. This was after making a provision of 10% depreciation as contemplated under Section 3(i)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. 3. I find no error in the manner of assessment. At the time when the Court had ordered notice of motion 29.5.1990 , the Division Bench of this Court directed that the petitioner was at liberty to seek his remedy by way of statutory appeal against the impugned order. The outcome of the appeal is not known and the counsel appearing for municipal Committee himself states that he has no instructions about whether any reappraisal had been made at the appellate stage. Since the case relates to the year 1990, it will be futile to refer the parties for an alternative remedy provided under the statute by directing the parties to prefer an appeal. I have examined the correctness of the impugned order on its own merits and I do not find any error to interfere in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed. 28.11.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE -