IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2087 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.2.2011 Jaswant Kaur … Appellant Versus Municipal Council and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.V.K.Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering imposed house tax. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that she was owner in possession of the house bearing No.6343 situated at Jagraon. On 6.1.2005, a demand of Rs.24032/- as arrears of house tax, for the year 1998-99 to 2003-04, was made. The amount was required to be deposited on or before 17.1.2005. No notice was ever issued to the plaintiff qua the assessment proceedings. The plaintiff was not heard at the time of passing of the assessment order. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement averred that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction prayed for? OPP. (2) Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit/OPD (3) Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts from Court is not entitled for discretionary relief of injunction? OPD (4) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit?OPD (5) Relief. RSA No.2087 of 2010 (O&M) Vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree, was also dismissed by District Judge, Ludhiana on 1.12.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which reads as under :- “86.Taxation not to be questioned except under this Act.- (1) No objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned, in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. (2) No refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder.” Thus, in the present case, the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the assessment of house tax was not maintainable. The plaintiff could have availed the remedies available to her under the Act. Moreover, it has been noticed by the Courts below that the plaintiff had appeared before the House Tax Committee and had represented her case and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 14.02.2011 sd 2