POORAN SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SUNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.02.1994 (Annexure P-1) vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the assessment of house tax for the year 1992-93 has been dismissed by respondent no. 2 and for quashing the impugned assessment of house tax being contrary to law and further directing respondent no. 1 to proceed further in the matter of house tax only in accordance with law or any other writ, order or direction that this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is owner of property bearing No. B-II-27 and the petitioner received notice no. 487-Tax dated 10.02.1992 from respondent no. 1 regarding the increase in the annual rental value of the property in dispute. The petitioner submitted objections to the same on 17.03.1992 that the petitioner had not made any additions in the property and, therefore, no enhancement was required. He also submitted that no facility of water supply and sewerage connection was given to him by the Committee and the proposed enhancement in the house tax be withdrawn. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was paying house tax at Rs. 1,150 and from this year, it was proposed to be increased to Rs. 3,700 meaning that the proposed house tax of the property was to increase more than 3 times and the Administrator of the Municipal Committee, vide order dated 26.05.1992 after objections had fixed the annual rental value at Rs. 27,600.

(2.) The petitioner had preferred an appeal against this order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'The Act') and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.02.1994. Accordingly, it is averred that the Municipal Committee did not fix any fair rent of the property in dispute and that unless fair rent is determined, the house tax could not be imposed since it has been conclusively held that the duty of the Municipal Committee is to first determine the fair rent and only then proceed further in the matter regarding the determination of house tax. Since the respondents had failed to follow the law laid down for enhancement of house tax, therefore, the whole procedure is illegal in the eyes of law and the order has been passed without any application of mind.

(3.) This Court, vide order dated 31.03.1994, directed the counsel for the petitioner to place on record copy of the order of the Municipal Committee dated 26.05.1992, whereby the assessment had been done by the Municipal Committee. The same order was complied with and thereafter the case was admitted for regular hearing and the operation of the assessment order and the order dismissing the appeal was stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the enhanced tax. In spite of a period of 18 years having expired from the date of admission, no written statement has been filed by the respondents and, therefore, the averments made in the writ petition are deemed to be correct as they have not been controverted in any manner.