KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law involved herein is, whether the petitioner-University is liable to pay the house tax to the respondent- Municipal Council or it is exempted therefrom, in view of clause 4 of the notification dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure P-10). The facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute, are that the petitioner is the creation of a Statute known as "Kurukshetra University Act, 1956" (Act No. XII of 1956), issued by the State of Punjab (Joint Punjab as it then was). The campus of the University is spread over a vast area of about 400 acres, including residential as well as nonresidential building, list whereof, is appended at Annexure P-1. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner-University that all the land and buildings situated in the campus of the University were being used exclusively for educational purposes. The income derived from the shopping complex, situated within the University Campus, constructed for the purpose of providing items of daily use to the students and staff, to provide them homely atmosphere, was also being used only for educational purposes. Further, the streets, roads, drainage, sanitation, parks and other civil amenities were constructed and being maintained by the petitioner-University from its own financial resources, without seeking any kind of assistance from the respondent-Municipal Council. A well thought decision was taken by the respondent-State issuing the notification dated 17.1.1983 (Annexure P-2) and vide clause (iv) thereof, exemption was granted to religious, charitable and educational institutions. Even prior to issuance of notification (Annexure P-2), house tax was exempted qua the educational institutions, because of which no house tax was levied on the petitioner-University right from its inception.

(2.) Once the house tax was imposed in the year 1975, but on the representation having been made on behalf of the petitioner-University, it was granted exemption from house tax. With a view to set aside this ongoing controversy, the petitioner-University sought advise from the Examiner Local Fund Accounts, Haryana, vide Annexure P-4 and in response thereto, it was clarified vide Annexure P-5 dated 5.11.1984 that the shops and canteen in the University campus were exempted from house tax, as per clause (iv) of the above-said notification (Annexure P-2). Respondent-Municipal Council also intimated the petitioner, vide Annexure P-6 that in view of (iv) of the notification (Annexure P-2), the properties of educational institutions, i.e. University were exempted from house tax. However, vide Annexure P-7 dated 13.2.2001, respondent-Municipal Council sought information from the petitioner so as to enable the respondent-Municipal Council to assess the house tax for the year 2001-02, as per new House Tax Assessment Policy issued by the Government, Petitioner-University wrote to the respondent-Municipal Council replying above-said communication dated 13.2.2001 (Annexure P-7). In its reply dated 23.3.2001 (Annexure P-8), petitioner-University invoked the exemption clause and sought exemption from house tax. Respondent-Municipal Council again wrote to the petitioner-University vide communication dated 3.5.2001 (Annexure P-9) expressing its intention for house tax assessment. Then the impugned notification dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure P-10) came to be issued, which was amended vide notification Annexure P-11. Based on the notifications referred to herein-above, respondent-Municipal Council raised the impugned demand of house tax, vide letter dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure P-12).

(3.) Petitioner-University represented to the State Government vide Annexure P-13 dated 6.6.2002. Respondent No. 2 wrote back to the petitioner-University vide letter dated 10.7.2002 (Annexure P-14) saying that the petitioner-University was not entitled for exemption from house tax. In spite of the above-said communications, petitioner-University approached the State Government by way of its representation dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure P-15). Accordingly, a meeting was convened vide Annexure P-16. Annexure P-17 was the agenda for discussion before the meeting. Finally, respondent No. 2 wrote to the petitioner-University vide communication dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure P-18) for payment of house tax. It seems that when the respondent-Municipal Council started charging house tax from the petitioner-University and that too without providing any civic amenities, petitioner-University filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction vide Annexure P-19. Respondent-Municipal Council filed its written statement vide Annexure P-20. Vide order dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-21), learned civil court allowed the application of the petitioner Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, thereby restraining the defendant-respondent Municipal Council from charging any tax. However, appeal of the respondent-Municipal Council was allowed by the learned first appellate court vide order dated 27.7.2011, Annexure P-22. Thereafter, the respondent-Municipal Council issued a building and land tax bill dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-23) raising the impugned demand for house tax against the petitioner.