IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17252 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 29.09.2008 Surinder Pal Mittal and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are owners of a building, in which a Nursing Home is being run, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.3.2000 (Annexure P-6), passed by the House Tax Sub Committee, Nagar Council, Barnala; order dated 6.11.2000 (Annexure P-8), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order has been dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Sangrur, and the order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure P-10), whereby the revision of the petitioners has also CWP No. 17252 of 2008 -2- been dismissed. Vide the aforesaid impugned orders, the annual rental value of the building in question for the purpose of imposing house tax has been assessed as Rs. 93,600/-. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the aforesaid impugned orders. The aforesaid rental value has been assessed on the basis of capital value of the building, as the said building is in occupation of the petitioners. This value has been assessed in view of Section 3 (1) (b) and 3 (8aa) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council (now Corporation) Patiala and others v. Model Town Welfare Residents Association and others, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 754. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while assessing the said rental value, the sale instances given by the petitioners showing the capital value of the surrounding buildings has not been properly appreciated and taken into consideration. We are not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, as the authorities below, after taking into consideration the various material and the market value of the commercial buildings in the surrounding area, have assessed the annual rental value of the building in question, on the basis of capital value of the building. In our opinion, the annual rental value, assessed by the authorities, cannot be said to be unreasonable or on higher CWP No. 17252 of 2008 -3- side. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 29, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE