Civil Writ Petition No.9974 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9974 of 2009 Date of Decision:06.04.2011 Food Corporation of India ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Food Corporation of India(for brevity “the FCI”) is the owner of the property in dispute. Having completed many rounds of litigation, ultimately respondent No.2-Nagar Panchayat, Khamano(for short “the respondent-Committee”) levied the house-tax on the property of the FCI vide order dated 04.09.2002(Annexure P-5), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-5) of the assessment of house tax, the FCI filed the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner(“The Appellate Authority) accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the respondent- Committee, for its fresh decision by virtue of order dated 18.12.2003 Civil Writ Petition No.9974 of 2009 2 (Annexure P-9). The Committee again accepted the method of calculation and approved the levy of tax proposed by the house-tax Sub-Committee, vide resolution dated 31.05.2004(Annexure P-10). The appeal filed by the FCI was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by means of impugned order dated 24.01.2006(Annexure P-11) and the revision filed by it, was dismissed as well by the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab by way of impugned order dated 18.06.2008(Annexure P-12). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition and challenged the impugned orders(Annexures P-10 to P-12), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, mainly on the ground that although the respondent-Committee was required to assess the house- tax in view of the amended provisions of the Act, but it fell in legal error in levying the house-tax on the property of the petitioner, as per un-amended provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for contesting respondents have fairly acknowledged the legal position in this context. 4. In this manner, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered and is liable to be decided, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Committee, Patiala Versus Model Town Residents Association and others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2844. The operative part of which is, as under:- “For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment. We declare the aforestated Section 3(1)(b) and Section 3(8aa) as valid. Accordingly, we uphold the validity of the said sections. Since we have upheld the validity of the aforestated impugned sections we make it clear that all pending disputed assessments and appeals therefrom shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as amended. The civil appeals filed by Patiala Municipal Committee as well as the State Government are allowed with no order as to costs.” 5. Meaning thereby, the Municipal Committee was legally required to Civil Writ Petition No.9974 of 2009 3 decide the question of levying the house-tax on the property in question of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the amended Act and not otherwise. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders(Annexures P-10 to P-12) are hereby set aside, as urged by the learned counsel for the parties. The matter is remitted back to the respondent- Committee for its fresh decision for imposition of house-tax on the indicated property of the petitioner, in view of the amended provisions of the Act and the law laid down in Municipal Committee, Patiala's case(supra) in this relevant connection. April 06, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE