KULDIP SINGH DHINGRA Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts are that the appellants are owners of the property No. 85) Golf Link, New Delhi. The property was assessed to house tax in the year 1971-72. It was proposed to be revised for the year 1972-73. The property owners claimed that they are residents of Amritsar. A notice under sub-section (2) of section 215 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (the Act) was sent in a registered cover addressed to their Amritsar address by the New Delhi Municipal Gommittee (herein the committee). It appears that these notices were returned unserved because the addresses were not available on the given address. The committee therefore, issued fresh notices and served them by affixation on the property in Golf Links, New Delhi under sub-section (1) of section 215 of the Act. No body appeared in response to this notice and eventually the tax was revised and a demand of Rs. 7559-10 paise was raised. The owners filed a suit for permanent injunction and prayed that the defendant committee be restrained permanently from recovering the alleged property tax based on a wrong valuation and it be held that the assessment by the defendant committee is illegal, invalid, inoperative and without jurisdiction. The committee in (heir written statement took several objections. The learned Sub-Judge by his judgment dated December 18, 1975 decreed the suit. His finding was that the assessment made by the committee is not in accordance with law because the notice under sections 65 and 68 of the Act was not served in accordance with provisions of subsection (2) of section 215. He further held that he had the jurisdiction to decide the matter regarding house tax etc.

(2.) On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated May 21,1980 reversed i he decree. He held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the dispute. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) It is urged that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the suit because the assessing authority did not comply with the provisions of section 215 of the Act. It could not acquire jurisdiction unless a proper notice was served. It is not a case of irregular or wrong exercise of jurisdiction but it is a case of usurpation of powers. Administrator, City (if Lahore v. Abdul Mojid, AIR 1945 Lah 81 was dited in support. Civil court's julisdiclion is not ousted if the Tribunal abuses its powers or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions; Firm Seth Badha Kishan v, Adminisliator Municipal Committee Ludhiana, AIR 1963 SC. 1547 and 'The State, of West Bengal v. The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., AIR 1970 S.C. 2298.