PUNJAB CERAMIC LTD Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BATHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 13.8.1981 published in the Punjab Government Gazettee for extension of Municipal limits and as a consequence of extension of boundaries, House Tax to the tune of Rs. 3,62,981.25 was imposed, on the petitioner for the period from 1988 to 1991 which is also challenged in this petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner industry is situated at Bathinda. It is alleged in the petition that. for extending the Municipal limits Bathinda, earlier Notification was issued on 24.11.1974 for inclusion of area falling between Sirsa Railway Line and Delhi Railway Line in the Municipal limits of Bathinda but that Notification was challenged by Milk Plant, Bathinda as well as Guru Nanak Ice Factory, Bathinda in a civil suit and was declared illegal by the District Judge, Bathinda. Thereafter, another Notification was issued on 8.3.1977 including some more area falling between Sirsa Railway Line and Delhi Railway Line situated on the south of Dabwali Road, Bathinda. Thereaftet, another Notification on 13.8.1981 was issued for inclusion of area adjoining the existing boundaries where the industry of petitioner is situated. At the time of issuance of Notification for inclusion of area, no notice to the petitioner or the other similar situated persons was given so as to enable them to file objections. After inclusion of the area, Municipal Committee, Bathinda imposed House Tax on the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,62,981.25 vide notice dated 12.6.1990 for the period 1988-91. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the inclusion of area by way of Notification dated 13.8.1981 and demand notice dated 14.6.1990 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount on the ground that no individual notice before inclusion of area and assessment of the House Tax was given to the petitioner.

(3.) THE main plea raised by Mr. Anurag Chopra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that prior to issuance of Notification under Section 5 of the Act, no individual notice was given to the petitioner or other persons residing in the locality which were included in the Municipal limit, therefore, the petitioner could not represent against the extension of boundaries of the Municipal limit.