LAWS(P&H)-1981-8-83

PUNJAB STATE Vs. SATNAM SINGH

Decided On August 03, 1981
PUNJAB STATE Appellant
V/S
SATNAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab imposed property tax on the property owned by Satnam Singh and his brother under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act]. Dissatisfied with the same, they filed appeals etc. under the Act and after failing therein, the present suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the State, through the Excise and Taxation Officer, from realising the property tax on the basis of the impugned order. It was stated that the annual value had not been fixed according to Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, by taking into consideration the rental as obtained during the year 1938 and, therefore, the rental value fixed under the impugned orders was illegal and deserved to be set aside. The State of Punjab contested the suit and one of the objections raised was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 23 of the Act. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the learned Additional District Judge, on plaintiffs' appeal, reversed the decision of the trial Court on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as also on merits and decreed the suit. The State has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties on the point of jurisdiction of civil Court, I am of the view that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the two latest decisions of the Supreme Court in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corporation, 1977 AIR(SC) 955and Munshi Ram and Others v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta,1986 RRR 330. The relevant passage from Bata Shoe Co.'s case is as follows :-

(3.) Under the Act which is under consideration before me the annual value is first ascertained under Section 5. Under Section 8 draft valuation list is prepared against which the aggrieved party is allowed time to file objections and then the list is finalised. Section 9 provides for amendment of the current valuation list and Section 10 provides for appeals and revision. Section 23 is as follows :-