BUDH RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved against the assessment of property bearing No. 2/925 which is situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Mansa whereby the annual value has been enhanced from Rs. 1,600/- to Rs. 8,000/- for the year 1985-86.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of this case are that the petitioner's building measuring 14 feet x 35 feet bearing unit No. 2/925, which is situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Mansa was assessed for the purpose of house tax for Rs. 1,600/-, for the year 1985-86. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited house tax amounting to Rs. 200/- plus Rs. 5/- as notice fee on 14.10.1985 as demanded by the respondent-Municipal Committee. The property of the petitioner was, however, sought to be re-assessed for Rs. 25,500/- and notice Annexure P-1 in that behalf was accordingly issued to the petitioner. The action for re-assessment of the petitioner's property was done under Section 67(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short "the 1911 Act"). The petitioner submitted reply to the notice Annexure P-1, but his property was re-assessed and the assessment for the purpose of house tax was made at Rs. 8,000/- vide order dated 26.2.1986, Annexure P-2. Aggrieved against the enhancement of assessment, as noticed above, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No. 2. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda vide order dated 17.3.1986, Annexure P-3. The petitioner, however, deposited Rs. 792/- under protest on account of enhanced house tax.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is stated that since the son of the petitioner had agreed to the assessment made on 28.2.1986, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the same. It is further stated that in the reply filed to the notice, the petitioner did not take any objection, which is clear from Annexure R-1. It is also stated that the entire unit in question was demolished and re-constructed in the year 1985-86 and it is for this reason the rental value of the property was increased. It was stated that the present tenant in the property in question has been paying Rs. 22,000/- per annum as rent, therefore, rental value of the property fixed at Rs. 8,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.