1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 291 of 2000 THAKUR DASS V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. Mr. RAJEEV PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner. Mr. K.K. BISSA, for the respondent. Date of Order : 7.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2000 dismissing the writ petition whereby the petitioner had challenged the assessment of house tax, appellate order affirming it and the revisional order further affirming it. First submission made by leaned counsel was that before making determination of the valuation of the property, no notice was given to the appellant. We find from the appellate order Annexure/10 that this aspect was considered by the appellate authority and after perusing the record it was negatived by holding that notice under Section 11(1) and 13 was given, which was properly served still the petitioner did not appear nor produced any 2 document. Then the petitioner filed revision Annexure-11 and therein this ground does not appear to have been taken though learned counsel referred to para 14 but then that para does not cover this ground. Be that as it may, the fact remains that still the revisional authority in the order Annexure/11 has again held that notices were served on petitioner. On the face of this sequence of findings, this ground can not be entertained by this Court in this appeal. The next submission made was that the valuation of the property as assessed as Rs.5 lacs is arbitrary and without any basis. It would suffice to say that the order passed by the appellate authority shows that the whole thrust of the argument before that authority was, that the property should have been assessed in two units and not one, as the property had been partitioned. From the order Annexure-9 it does not appear that this contention was ever pressed during hearing about the valuation as becoming arbitrary, excessive or without any basis, may be that this contention was raised in memo of appeal. Then in Annexure/10 this aspect has been considered and it has been found that after receipt of the report assessing the valuation of the property at Rs.5 lacs, notices were sent to the present petitioner under Section 11 and 13 which were duly served but the petitioner never appeared nor raised any objection or 3 filed any documents, therefore, interference was not made. Then in revision also though this contention was raised but in vain, as noticed above despite service the petitioner did not appear nor produced any document. During course of arguments we again asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show, if the appellant has produced any assessment of the valuation of the property, according to him, which might show that the valuation is at any figure less than 5 lacs. Learned counsel could not point out any such document either. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with in this appeal in our intra court appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. 4 /jgoyal /