RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition 4580 of 2002 and other 29 connected writ petitions in which common questions of law and fact arise.

(2.) SECTION 69 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short the Principal Act) prescribes for levy of tax payable by the owner of buildings and lands at a certain percentage of the annual value of such buildings and lands as the State Government may determine within the prescribed limits. Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions is to the vires of Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2001 whereby the definition of 'annual value' in clause (1) of Section 2 of the Principal Act has been amended. The directions issued by the State Government under Proviso (ii) of Section 2(1)(b) and (c) as introduced by the Amending Act have also been impugned. Prior to the amendment of the Principal Act, Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2(1) were as under:-

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties, we are not impressed with either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It may be mentioned at the outset that neither the amended provisions nor the directions issued by the State Government prescribe any fixed rate for determining the value of the structure raised on any land. In the very nature of things the value of the structure will have to be determined in each case depending upon the nature and type of construction raised. What has been prescribed by the Government instructions is the rate of the land and the rate of depreciation which according to the statutory provisions has to be reasonable in the circumstances of each case. Thus, the objection that the statutory provision providing for inviting of objections has been made redundant, is without any basis. It is open to an occupier/owner of the property to raise objections regarding the valuation of the structure. Thus, the only question which requires our consideration is whether the determination of the value of the land on the basis of the rates as fixed by the District Collector is reasonable. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative. The determination of the value of the land on the basis of the rates fixed by the Collector is fair and reasonable because such rates are determined on the basis of the actual sale transactions which take place in a particular area during a certain period. These rates by and large reflect the correct market value of the land in that area and, therefore, the basis as adopted by the State Government cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary so as to make the provision violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the market rate of the land as fixed by the Collector is based on the average of the actual sale transactions that have taken place, the rates so fixed may in some cases be slightly more than the actual value while in some cases even less. This by itself will not make the provision arbitrary even though it may cause hardship in some isolated case. Determination of the value of land on the basis of the Collector's rates is one mode of determining the value of the land. This made cannot be struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution merely because there may be some other mode(s) of determining the value of land unless the one adopted/prescribed by the State Government is shown to be patently unreasonable. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting both the contentions. Before concluding, we may also notice an additional objection raised by Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate in CWP 7563 of 2002. It was urged by the learned counsel that the Municipal Council, Yamunanagar had by its resolution No. 4 dated 24.3.2001 adopted the house tax assessment of the year 1997-98 for the year 2001-02. According to the learned counsel, the Municipal Council could not revise the assessment for the year 2001-02, and, therefore, the impugned house tax bills issued by it were liable to be quashed. The argument is being noticed only to be rejected. The resolution referred to by the learned counsel was passed by the Municipal Council prior to the amendment of the Principal Act. After the amendment the law had changed and fresh directions had been issued by the State Government keeping in view the amended provisions. The Municipal Council had, thus, no option but to revise the assessment in the light of the fresh direction issued in terms of the amended provisions which, as we have held above, were constitutionally valid. No other point was raised in any of the other writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had adopted the aforesaid two contentions advanced in CWP No. 4580 of 2002. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.