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. 1350.00 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. 12.00 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. 1350.00. 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. 1350.00 to Rs. 13,800.00. 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. Copyof 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.) . Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Counter Affidavit. It is submitted in the Counter Affidavit that the House Tax under the Cantonment Act is assessed triennial in accordance with the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924. The petitioner was tenant of the house in question at the rent of Rs. 1200.00 per month. The public in general was given notice of the proceeding by publication in the local newspaper affixing the notice on conspicuous places in the Cantonment Area apart from 'Dasti Notice'; to the owner of the House. The petitioner who was one of the tenants in the building also got notice of the Cantonment Board in person regarding proceeding for assessment on behalf of the landlord and co-tenant and, neither she nor Abdul Rehman owner of the House nor any other tenant got notice for proposed increase of the house tax at the rate of Rs. 13,800.00 per annum. Abdul Rehman was given notice dated 13-11-1994. The Assessment Committee decided objections in 23 meetings between 22/02/1996 and 6th of the November, 1996. The Assessment Committee for the purpose of assessment of the house tax takes into consideration the previous monthly/annual rental value of the property, the present amount of annual tax including water and property tax @ 18.25 per cent. in accordance with S. 6 of the Cantonment Board Act and the amount of annual tax is assessed under S. 66 of the said Act. That since no objections were filed by Sri Abdul Rehman the final assessment of the house tax under S. 69 in respect of the property in dispute was assessed at the rate of Rs. 13,800.00 p.a. i.e. on the admitted actual annual rent being paid at the relevant point of time. A list was prepared under S. 67 which was finalised and authenticated on 6-11-1996 and published in the newspaper on 8-11-1996 for information to the public including the objectors. That from perusal of Annexure-2, it was revealed that Sri Abdul Rehman executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15-6-1996, but none of them was informed the Cantonment Board or the Assessment Committee about the sale/purchase of the house in question by Sale Deed dated 15-6-1996. The petitioner also did not get her name mutated in the records of the Cantonment Board as owner. It was stated that it is wrong to say that the petitioner was tenant in the house at the rate of Rs. 12.00 per month since last more than 20 years. Prior to 1993, no tenant was shown in the building as per the Cantonment Record. The annual value of the house was, therefore, assessed only at the rate of Rs. 1350.00 per annum. At the presents house No. 72 consists of four big rooms, Verandah, Latrine, Kitchen, Bathroom with marble tiles flooring. The house has been rightly assessed as having rental value of Rs. 1150.00 per month. It is further stated that the notice of the assessment was given to the public in general by publication in newspaper and personally also through peon, to all the owners of house.