IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10521 of 1988 Date of decision:03.12.2009 Sawraj Rani ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Wasu, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is of the year, 1988 and the writ petition challenges the assessment of property to tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. There is no representation for the petitioner but however the counsel for the respondent is present and ready. I have proceeded to examine the case with the able assistance of the counsel for the respondent and pass the following order. 2. Before the competent authority, the owner produced rent deeds drawn in favour of the son and husband of the landowner as affording evidence of the prevailing rentals in the locality. The Administrator rejected the documents as having been created in favour of near relations and affirmed the assessment of annual rental value Civil Writ Petition No.10521 of 1988 - 2 - of Rs.7,000/-. In the appeal filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, the same contentions and reliance on the same document were made by the landowner. The Additional Deputy Commissioner however referred to the report of the Municipal Committee, Raikot and making a comparison to similarly placed property in the vicinity that was fetching Rs.500/- per month assessed the annual rental value of the building at Rs.7,000/- for the purpose of assessment to property tax. 3. In the writ petition what could be examined is whether the competent authority afforded a sufficient opportunity for the landowner to adduce evidence and whether the principles of natural justice had been followed. The decision of a quasi-judicial authority would require no intervention unless the procedure as established by law had not been followed or the reasoning adopted was patently wrong or legally suspect. In the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is impugned in the writ petition, it is seen that an appropriate comparison of other property in the vicinity was also taken note of before determining the annual rental value of the building. There is nothing amiss in the order that would require any intervention. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.12.2009 sanjeev