NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE Vs. DHANPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from realising the house tax alleged to be assessed on the plaintiff for the period from 1.4.1966 to 31.3.1973 and 1.4.1973 to 3.3.1974 under Notification No. 6688 I-CI-66/23337 dated 5.8.1966. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is the owner and occupier of the building and the rented property situated within the local limits of the Notified Area Committee, Uchana. He also alleged that notice was not issued regarding the making of assessment of the house tax and that he was never given a chance to file objections. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant-appellant, without hearing the plaintiff-respondent, has imposed the house-tax. The plaintiff also alleged that he never received the bills dated 5.2.1972 and 12.4.1974 for realizing the house-tax. It was prayed by the plaintiff-respondent that the act of the defendant-appellant is not at all fair and it is against the law and the order of the Municipal Committee is null and void. The plaintif-respondent further stated in the plaint that, first of all, assessment list is prepared under Section 63 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and then objections are to be heard by the Committee and, after hearing the objections, house-tax is imposed, but no such formalities were observed; that in the absence of the plaintiff, the whole proceedings were taken by the defendant-appellant and the bills which were sent for the recovery are false and baseless; the that no recovery of the said bills can be made from the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant appeared and contested the suit and contended that the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent are false and baseless; that a notice was issued to the plaintiff and an assessment list was prepared, that the objections of the plaintiff were heard and after hearing the objections, the house-tax was imposed; and that the notice for recovery of house tax was issued after completing all the formalities. It was also contended by the defendant-appellant that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff respondent and the suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff-respondent aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.1.1977 passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Narwana, filed an appeal before the Senior Sub Judge Jind. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was sent aside.