BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh (shortly the Board) is a statutory body and is under the control of the Central Government. It owns a number of residential houses which were constructed at Nangal Township for providing residential accommodation to its officers, staff and workers, employed in the Power Houses. There are 10 types of houses ranging from Superintending Engineer to Peon and Mate. Each bungalow and quarter has separate boundary wall and is a compact unit with distinct and separate identification mark/house number and is allotted to each individual officer, staff member or worker. Each bungalow or quarter has been assessed at separate standard rent worked out according to the rules applicable to Punjab Government buildings of similar nature. The Notified Area Committee Nangal (briefly the Committee) issued a bill of house-tax dated 22nd January, 1979 for the year 1978-79, amounting to Rs. 19668.87. A copy of the bill is Annexure P.5. In this bill, the Committee had clubbed quarters or bungalows which adjoin each other and from outside looked like compact building and in this manner, calculated annual rental value and assessed the house-tax. The Board filed objections (Annexure P.6) against the assessment of house-tax. Therein it was pointed out that a building having annual rental value not exceeding Rs. 840 was exempt from tax and that most of the quarters whose rental value did not exceed Rs. 840 were exempt from tax. It was also pointed out that certain building had rental value above Rs. 840, but not exceeding Rs. 1,800 and thereof, 12 per cent tax could be imposed, whereas 15 per cent was imposed which could be imposed on premises, the annual rental value of which exceeded Rs. 1,800. In support of his contention reliance was placed on notification (Annexure P.7). It was also pointed out that for the earlier assessment year Civil Writ Petition No. 1946 of 1978 was pending in the High Court and the demand be kept in abeyance. This was rejected by letter Annexure P.1. The Board filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Additional Deputy Commissioner who heard the appeal dismissed the same - vide order dated 31st August, 1979 (Annexure P2) relying upon the earlier decision of the former Deputy Commissioner wherein it was remarked that the Committee should assess the house-tax, considering each block as a separate unit. It was also held that the key word 'building' meant a compact building which is physically separate and distinct from another building, even if it has been provisionally sub-divided into a number of independent units and sublet to different persons. A Division Bench decision of this Court, reported in Sadhu Ram Jain v. State of Punjab, 1977 RLR 79 was distinguished by observing that therein different buildings of the same owner were involved and it was held that the rental value of the those separate buildings could not be clubbed while making the assessment of house- tax. Some of the relevant words of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in distinguishing that decision are as follows :

(2.) Pending the writ petition, interim order was passed declining stay with the observation that in case the amount is paid and ultimately the writ petition is allowed, the Committee would return the excess amount received along with 6 per cent interest. The writ petition remained pending for a long time and every year the Board filed application for stay and till 1983-84 it was ordered that in case the writ petition is allowed, the Board would forthwith refund the amount, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. For the subsequent year it was ordered that the Board would be entitled to the refund of the amount along with interest at 12 per cent.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A reading of order Annexure P2 shows that each compact building consisting of several quarters or flats, which were physically separate and distinct from each other, was treated as one unit for assessment of annual value. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the following averment was made :