MANGAL RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein owns property, in Abohar A notice dated May 21, 1988 was served on him by which the annual value of the property was sought to be revised from Rs. 8,600/- to Rs. 12,000/-. The increase was proposed on the basis of section 31(1)(b) and (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 . No specific grounds for the proposed increase were furnished in this notice. The petitioner filed the reply vide his letter dated June 24,1988, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-2. The Assessing Authority fixed the annual value Rs. 8400/- and accordingly a tax of Rs. 1134/- for the year 1988-89 was levied. The petitioner filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide his order dated December 15, 1988. The annual rental value of the property was reduced from Rs. 8400/- to Rs. 7200/-. Aggrieved by the order of assessment as also that of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been mentioned that the determination of annual rental value involves disputed questions of fact which can be gone into by a Civil Court only. Reference has also been made to the order dated October 5, 1988 passed by the Divison Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3036 of 1988. On merits, it has been averred that the procedure prescribed under the Act has been duly followed and the order passed by the authority is legal and valid. It has also been mentioned that the rental value of the property has been worked out with due regard to the provisions of the East punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and also keeping in view the additions made in the premises being used as Saw Mill (Ara) and boundary wall erected around enlarged area of the said Saw Mill (Ara)."

(3.) Mr. O.P. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a two- fold contention. Firstly, he submits that the annual rental value of the building has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned counsel asserts that this has not been done. Secondly, it has been submitted that no new construction, whatsoever has been raised. No such suggestion was made even in the notice given to the petitioner. Even the Appellate Authority has found as a fact that "the appellant has not raised any new construction and the premises in question is in self-occupation of the appellant." In view of this finding, the learned counsel submits that the basis for increase in value as suggested in the written statement is non-existent and the impugned action cannot be sustained.