R.S.A. No. 799 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 799 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.2.2009 Jarnail Singh ....Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 22.11.2004 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 24.10.2008. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their agents and employees from realising the amount of Rs.13,617.89 and from auctioning the property unit No.B-VIII-527, Naya Mohalla, Ludhiana. It was the case of the appellant that the proper procedure had not been followed resorting to the recovery of house-tax and that he had discovered suddenly a notice in Punjab Kesri dated 16.8.1977 regarding advertisement of his property which was to be sold through public auction on 27.8.1997 at 2.00 p.m. for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. He prayed that this R.S.A. No. 799 of 2009 (O&M) -2- notice and the entire process was illegal, null and void. The respondents contested the suit and pleaded that the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as no notice under Section 396 of the Act was served upon them prior to the filing of the suit. It was also pleaded that the appellant had been assessed to house-tax as per the records and that the property in question stood in the name of Kundan Singh son of Barkat Singh and the respondents had no knowledge about the appellant having succeeded after the death of Kundan Singh. It was alleged that the appellant was in arrears of house-tax since the year 1993-94 and the demand of the house-tax and arrears was on the basis of the assessment of the property finalised after following the proper procedure and since the appellant had not paid the amount of the house-tax, therefore the respondents started proceedings of attachment of the property under Sections 137 and 138 of the Act and accordingly the public notice was given for auctioning the property. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the defendant is not entitled to recover the amount from the plaintiff?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred u/s 14 9 of the Pb.M.C.Act?OPD 4. Whether no notice u/s 396 of the Pb.M.C.Act was served before filing the suit?OPD R.S.A. No. 799 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 5. Relief. The learned trial Court and the first Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. The findings of the Courts below have been assailed by the appellant in the regular second appeal. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that DW1 Girdhari Lal, Inspector testified that the property in question was assessed to house-tax after following the proper procedure of law. Notice under Section 103 of the Act was issued for the purpose of recovery, which is Ex.D-1 on the record. The said notice was received by the son of Kundan Singh and thereafter Kundan Singh and his son both filed objections, which are on record as Ex.D-2. Thereafter, he was served with another memorandums, which are on record as Exs.D-3 and D-4. The appellant made repeated requests for adjournments which are also on record. Ultimately, the objections were decided and the assessment was finalised on 16.3.1994 by the assessment committee. The order Ex.D-7 was served upon the appellant and thereafter the house tax was deposited upto the year 1995-96 amounting to Rs.14,312.89 by the appellant. Therefore, it was concluded that the appellant was in the know of the previous proceedings and therefore the assessment and subsequent demand notice issued for recovery was perfectly in order. On the basis of this the Courts below recorded their findings. It was also held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings regarding the recovery of the house-tax. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this R.S.A. No. 799 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The aforesaid testimony of DW1 Girdhari Lal, Inspector clearly reveals that the entire procedure had been followed. Since the proper procedure had been followed, the appellant was not left with much of grievance. That apart, it has also been stated that the amount of house tax which was due has since been deposited. In this view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 18.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss