Civil Writ Petition No.633 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 5.4.2011 Jainti Parshad ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Committee, Naraingarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Nemo for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms.Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana for respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which require to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner was the owner and in possession of the shop bearing House tax No.526, situated in the main Bazar of Naraingarh. The Administrator of Municipal Committee (for brevity “MC”) (respondent No.2) assessed the house tax of the shop in question at the rate of ` 3500/- per annum, by virtue of impugned order dated 7.10.1986 (Annexure P1). The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed as well, by the Sub Divisional Officer (North) (respondent No.3) (appellate authority), by means of impugned order dated 7.1.1987 (Annexure P2). 2. The petitioner filed the suit, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2), which was decreed by the Senior Sub Judge, by way of judgment and decree dated 9.12.1988. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.12.1988, the Administrator of the MC filed the appeal, which was accepted and the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, through the medium of judgment and decree dated 7.9.1991 (Annexure P3). 4. Instead of challenging the judgment and decree (Annexure P3) of Civil Writ Petition No.633 of 1992 2 appellate Court, in regular second appeal, the petitioner again did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia on the grounds that the MC was required to fix the annual rental value for the purpose of levying house tax, taking into consideration the fair rent of the building and since no alteration or addition has been made in the shop in question, so, there was no occasion to enhance the house tax. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) in the manner indicated hereinabove. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 6. As is evident from the record, that Administrator of MC assessed the house tax at the rate of ` 3500/- per annum, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P1). The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority, vide impugned order (Annexure P2). Even the civil suit filed by him was ultimately dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by means of judgment and decree dated 7.9.1991 (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is as under:- “Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent had vehemtly (sic.vehemently) argued that where a tax was imposed without following due procedure of law, the civil court could declare such levy as illegal. In support of this contention learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent had relied upon Municipal Committee Ladwa Tehsil Thanesar Distt.Karnal Vs. Daryat Lal and others, 1982 PLR 222. In that case the Municipal Committee had imposed levy without taking recourse to section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act. In such a situation it was held that it was open to the Civil Court to declare the levy as illegal. It is not understood in the present case as to what procedure laid down under the law had not been followed so as to give a jurisdiction to the civil court to interfere with the order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent had vehemently argued that the words 'May reasonably be expected to be let from year to year' could not be taken to be assessment of a rent higher than the fair rent fixed under the Rent Control Legislature and so the same was illegal. In support of this contention learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent had relied upon New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. M.N.Soi and another, AIR 1977 (SC) 302. That was an authority of a case arising under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959. The same Civil Writ Petition No.633 of 1992 3 therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. According to the relevant section 2(1)(b) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 where no fair rent is fixed, the gross annual rent is to be calculated at the rate at which it is expected to be let or it is actually let, whichever is greater. In the present case no fair rent had admittedly been fixed. The authority under the act had taken into consideration the annual rental value of the neighbouring building to determine the rent at which rent this building could be given. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Naraingarh had, therefore, passed a legal order. Even, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Naraingarh had passed a speaking order. It could not, therefore, be said that the impugned orders were null and void or illegal and arbitrary. The impugned orders cannot be challenged in the civil court as per authority contained in M/s Rama Krishana Rice Mills' case (Supra). I, therefore, find that the learned trial court had not decided issues No.1 & 3 rightly. I, therefore, decide these issues against the plaintiff-respondent. For the reasons discussed above, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to records.” 7. Meaning thereby, the civil Court has recorded the valid reasons and affirmed the impugned orders (Annexues P1 and P2) of assessment of house tax in question. Once the petitioner has approached, availed the remedy of civil suit and remained unsuccessful, then, to me, the civil writ petition challenging the same impugned orders, which were challenged in the civil Court, is not maintainable in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 5.4.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No