MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DHURI Vs. RAJINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.15051 to 15054 of 1994 as common questions of fact and law are involved in all the petitions. Before proceeding further, a brief reference to the facts is necessary which are being extracted from CWP -15051 -1994. CWP -15051 -1994 has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.08.1994 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent no.2 -S.D.O. Civil, Malerkotla exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 whereby appeal filed by respondent no.1 -Rajinder Mohan has been accpeted and house tax imposed by the Municipal Committee with retrospective effect has been declared illegal.

(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that the building situated on Dhuri Pind Road, Dhuri was given on rent to State Bank of Patiala, Branch Dhuri by the six owners including respondent no.1. The Executive Officer, Dhuri issued notice under Sections 65 and 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short, 'the 1911 Act') on 11.10.1993 to Surinder Kumar, respondent no.1 -Rajinder Mohan and Vinod Kumar for the assessment of house -tax of the building for the year 1993 -94. Respondent no.1 contested the assessment of house -tax on his own behalf as well as on behalf of Surinder Kumar and Vinod Kumar. The Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Dhuri levied house tax for the year 1993 -94 amounting to Rs.31, 716.36 and issued tax bill dated 21.03.1994. Against that, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Malerkotla, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner which has been accepted vide impugned order dated 12.08.1994 (Annexure P -2). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no.1 is liable to pay the house -tax as the same was rightly assessed by the house -tax sub committee. The impugned order (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent no.2 suffers from illegality. Even if, it is presumed that house -tax cannot be imposed retrospectively, respondent no.1 is still bound to pay house -tax as per existing assessment for those years. Learned counsel further contended that the Municipal Council was fully competent to include the building in the assessment list of house -tax. The Municipal Committee duly followed the provisions laid down in Section 67 of the 1911 Act. Learned counsel further contended that the Municipal Committee is fully competent to amend the assessment for the purposes of house -tax.