CWP No.3249 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3249 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Varinder Sanan care of M/s Ravi Dutt & Sons, The Mall Ferozepur City. ... Petitioner Versus The Municipal Committee, Ferozepur through its Administrator, and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. T.N. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the assessment of the non- residential property that belonged to the petitioner, for the purpose of levying house tax. The annual value of the property had been assessed at `8,100/- originally and a tax of `1,215/- had been assessed. On a reappraisal, after the objection from the petitioner, the annual value had been reduced to `6,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no valid basis for making such an assessment and the basis must only be the CWP No.3249 of 1988 (O&M) [2] provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to him, the property was a building constructed subsequent to 1st January, 1939 and the tax payable should be at 100% of the basic rent if the rent exceed `50/-. The petitioner was relying on the rent deed said to have been made in favour of firm and stated that the rent was only `30/- and even if an 100% increase must have been made, the annual value could not have been made on the basis of rent at `500/- per month. The assessment made by the authorities was not appropriate. 2. The counsel for the State points out that there was a deliberate concealment on the part of the petitioner in failing to disclose that the tenancy had been made in favour of the shop run by his own son and had concealed the identity even the father's name, who was himself. The counsel for the petitioner stated that it was 58 square yards and that subsequently in later part of 2010, it was annexed to a large building. At the relevant time when the assessment was made, the property was only a small shop. The counsel says that the assessment made was without any basis and would seek for remand of the case to the authority. 3. The principle for assessing the property tax is too well laid down for any doubt. There is no dispute on the proposition that the property tax can be levied only by assessing the annual value as required to be assessed under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. If an assessment on annual value was made at `6,000/-, I would understand that the monthly rental was assumed by the authority to be `500/- for a shop of the dimension 58 square yards within the municipal limits of Ferozepur. According to the State counsel, the property was situated on the Mall Road, which is the main road. I would have CWP No.3249 of 1988 (O&M) [3] no reason that there was any arbitrary valuation made. At the previous hearing, the counsel for the petitioner was specifically directed to find out the amount what could have been appropriate value. The counsel still persists with the argument that it shall be the duty of the Municipality to say and it shall not be necessary for him to give his own valuation. I find that the attempt is only to browbeat and needlessly gain time for further litigation, which otherwise very old and pending for a long time before this Court. A case where assessment was made on the basis of rental value at `500/- per month, would not require for further elaboration than what this case obtains through this order. 4. The writ petition is vexatious and and dismissed as such. NOVEMBER 25, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE