SUNITA RANI Vs. XVIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Smt. Sunita Rani has filed the present writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 6- 11-1996 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, and, also the order dated 6-4-1998 whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned order was dismissed by the appellate authority and the prayer to quash the said orders has been made. Further prayer is made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take the house tax as per earlier assessment on annual value of Rs. 1350/- per annum.

(2.) THE averments contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was tenant of House No. 72, Guru Nanakpuri (Tandel Mohalla), B. C. Bazar, Meerut Cantt. at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month since last more than 20 years. One Abdul Rehman was owner of the house. THE house was constructed over an area of 106. 5 sq. metres, out of which 1/3rd is covered with two rooms, Verandah, Latrine and Bathroom. Its annual value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1350/ -. On 23-11-1995 a notice of assessment was said to have been sent by the respondent No. 2 for revising assessment for the period of 1996 to 1999 and the proposed enhancement of annual value was from Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 13,800/ -. THE copy of the notice is Annexure-1. THE notice was never served upon the petitioner who was living in the House in question and who has purchased the house from Sri Abdul Rehman by registered sale deed dated 15-6-1996 for a sum of Rs. one lac and sixty thousand. Copy of the sale deed is appended as Annexure-2 with the writ petition. THE petitioner's claim is that in view of the provisions contained in S. 68 (1) of the Cantonment Act, she being in actual occupation of the house as lessee was also entitled to notice which was never served upon her. She further asserted that she had no knowledge of the proceeding of the revision of the assessment list and it was only after finalisation of the proceedings, when bill of demand notice was served upon her on 28-7-1998 she immediately applied for the certified copy of the extract of the Assessment Register and got the appeal filed under S. 68 (4) of the Cantonment Act. An application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, was also filed. THE aforesaid grounds were specifically taken up in the memo of appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. THE assessment order arbitrarily enhanced the annual value from Rs. 1350 to Rs. 13,800/ -.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of S. 68 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called as the Act) before revision of the assessment a notice in writing of the revision was required to be given to both the owner as well as to the lessee or occupier of the property. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is not disputed that at the relevant time the petitioner was one of the lessees of the building in question and no revision of assessment could have been done without service of a notice upon the petitioner. It is submitted that admittedly no notice was served upon the petitioner.