R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.01.2009 Baldev Singh ....Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay condoned. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 4.5.2005 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 31.1.2007. A suit was preferred by the appellant pleading that he is running an ice factory at Ludhiana and that he had received a notice under Section 137 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the respondent asking him to make the payment of Rs.88,762/- as disposal charges for the year 1994 to 1999-2000. He prayed that this notice and the consequent realisation of the said amount from the appellant is illegal, wrong, mala fide and R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) -2- unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was pleaded by him that under the provisions of Section 382 of the Act no proceedings for recovery of any sum can be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date from which the said sum became due. It was also pleaded that rule of audi alteram partem had been violated as no notice was issued to him. The respondent appeared and took a preliminary objection that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that the suit had been filed without serving a proper notice under Section 396 of the Act. On merits, the allegations of the appellant were denied and it was stated that after the issuance of notification, the appellant was called upon to declare the quantity of the water taken by him from the independent source as he had installed a pump for taking water supply and an assessment had been framed validly to say that he daily took 27 KL of water from the independent source and the discharge per month after excluding holidays was determined as 27x26=702 KL. This assessment, according to the respondent, was based on the information supplied by the appellant and the bill of demand was sent to him. But he has not deposited the amount of tariff. In these circumstances, the Municipal Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under Sections 137/138 of the Act. It was then pleaded that the notice and the consequent recovery proceedings were perfectly valid. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) -3- 2. Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Relief. Thereafter, on the basis of the material before it, the trial Court concluded that the suit of the plaintiff/appellant is devoid of any merit and dismissed the same. In appeal, the first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. In the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the pleas which were before the learned trial court to contend that such recovery could not have been effected beyond the period of three years. It was contended that the entire amount of the water consumed by him was taken for the purpose of calculating the discharge which was also erroneous. It was thus contended that the entire demand which has been raised upon the appellant is unjustifiable. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and reliance was placed on Kelash Nath s/o L.Durga Dass and others v. Municipal Committee, Batala AIR 1962 Punjab 389 wherein it was held as under :- “.....As it is a clear case of mistake and as no question of jurisdiction is involved, the aggrieved party must seek his remedy under section 84 which provides the forum for appeal and reference in the matter of a wrong assessment. It the committee persists in perpetuating that mistake it R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) -4- may even be open to the plaintiffs to bring that matter upto High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but the Civil Courts cannot entertain and decide the present suit.” Further, reliance was also placed on Munishi Ram and others v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta AIR 1979 S.C. 1250 and para 24 of the said judgment reads as under :- “24. It is well-recognised that where a Revenue Statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded. Construed in the light of this principle, it is clear that Sections 84 and 86 of the Municipal Act bar, by inevitable implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where the grievance of the party relates to an assessment or the principle of assessment under this Act.” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The proceedings have been initiated against the appellant under the provisions of Section 137 of the Act. Section 146 (1) of the Act, which is to the following effect, lays down that the proceedings initiated under the aforesaid provisions of law are subject to an appeal and Section 149 of the Act specifically debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2007 (O&M) -5- “146. Appeal against assessment, etc.-- (1) An appeal against the levy or assessment of any tax under this Act shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner and every such appeal shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be received, heard and disposed of within the local area of the City.” In Municipal Copmmittee, Kharar v. Sohan Lal (Dead) through LRs. 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 726, this Court while relying upon the observations of the Apex Court had held that in such eventualities the civil court has no jurisdiction. Once the proceedings to levy a tax or to recover any sum have been initiated under the provisions of the Act, it becomes subject to the mechanism which is provided under the Act and therefore the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. In this view of the matter, since the suit itself was not maintainable, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse to his remedy under the law. 8.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss