C.W.P. No. 2600 of 1989 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2600 of 1989 Date of Decision: 24.12.2010 Om Parkash and others ..................................................... Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ................................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ... Ritu Bahri, J. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 2600 of 1989, 3972 of 1989 and 9542 of 1992 as common question of law and facts arise in all these petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 2600 of 1989. Challenge in this writ petition is to the notices of assessment of House/Building tax on the petitioners and a prayer for quashing notices Annexures P2 and P4 to P7 has been made. Notices have been issued to the petitioners under Section 78 of the Haryana Municipal Act,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') whereby they were informed that the annual rental value of their property C.W.P. No. 2600 of 1989 [ 2 ] has been increased. Objections were invited within a period of one month for enhancement of the rental value. The petitioners have challenged the action of the Municipal Committee on the ground that procedure under Sections 77, 78 and 80 of the Act has not been followed. No public notice as contemplated under Section 78 of the Act has been published by the Municipal Committee proceeding to revise the valuation and assessment of the property. After publication of this notice, a specific notice to the occupier of the property has not been given while issuing notices Annexures P2 and P4 to P7. As per bye-laws 27 of the Haryana Municipal Bye-laws, a Finance Committee elected by the Municipal Committee can hear the objections. In the present case, a Special Sub-Committee constituted by the Municipal Committee has heard the objections. On these two grounds the notices issued are being sought to be quashed. In the written statement, compliance of Section 77 of the Act has been explained. Public notice was given for publication in the `Dainik Chetna' and `Purvi Punjab' in the year 1989. Apart from issuing notices in the aforesaid newspapers, proclamation was made by the beat of drum in the localities. Notices were also pasted at the Tehsil Headquarter, important public crossings, public relations office, mini secretariat and various other places. Thereafter, notices under Section 78 were issued to the petitioners. Vide Resolution No. 92, the Municipal Committee had completed the survey of the buildings. Sections 77 and 78 of the Act were complied with and there was no violation of any procedure. After going through the entire file, this Court has come to the conclusion that no public notice had been issued in Form `A' proceeding to C.W.P. No. 2600 of 1989 [ 3 ] revise the valuation and assessment of the property. Specific notices have been issued to the petitioners giving them one month's time to file their objections. There is non-compliance of Section 78 of the Act. This Court on 2.5.1996 had given an opportunity to the Municipal Committee to file an affidavit whether a Finance Committee had been constituted for hearing the objections or not. Till date, no such affidavit has been filed. As per bye-laws 27 of the Haryana Municipal Bye-laws, it was only the Finance Committee who could hear the objections. There is non-compliance of publication of public notice as per Section 78 of the Act and hearing of the objections by a Finance Committee has not been as per Bye-laws 27 of the Haryana Municipal Bye-laws. Notices Annexures P2 and P4 to P7 are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed with no order as to costs. 24.12.2010 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE