Civil Writ Petition No. 9604 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9604 of 2008 Date of decision : 21.01.2010 Jaspal Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. O.P. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate for respondents No. 3. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order Annexure P-1 dated 12.12.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 and order Annexure P-3 dated 24.12.2007, passed by respondent No. 2 regarding recovery of house tax from the petitioners after the lapse of period of three years from the date it fell due. The only contention of counsel for the petitioner is that demand of house tax raised beyond the period of three years is not sustainable and thus, the demand notice, Annexure P-4 vide which arrears of rent from 1998-99 onwards to 2006-07 were directed to be paid deserves to be quashed, as the demand is beyond limitation prescribed. He submits that issue was not dealt with by appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Barnala while exercising his power under Section 84 of the Punjab Civil Writ Petition No. 9604 of 2008 2 Municipal Act, 1911. Reliance has been placed on judgment reported as Municipal Committee, Bathinda. Vs. Jaswant Rai, 1990(1) SLJ 423. He has prayed inter alia that the matter be remanded back to the same authority for a decision afresh. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has supported the order passed by the appellate authority and submitted that the same is in consonance with the provisions of Municipal Act. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the issue of limitation has not been considered by the appellate authority as it was never raised. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the appellate authority for a decision afresh. It appears that the question of limitation was never raised before the said authority and thus no decision was taken thereon. Under the circumstances, order Annexure P-3 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the same authority for a decision of the same afresh after hearing the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all their pleas before the appellate authority including the question of limitation. The appellate authority may also take into consideration the judgment in Jaswant Rai case (supra) or any other judgment on which reliance is placed. The parties are directed to remain present before the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala on 18.02.2010. With the above said observations, the writ petition is allowed. January 21, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE