MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. KRISHANLAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in appeal here is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant an injunction to the Plaintiff seeking to restrain the Municipal Committee from recovering house -tax, as assessed, in respect of a shop situated in Bhatinda in the context of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 86 is in the following terms:

(2.) THE power to revise the valuation and assessment and the assessment list as conferred by Sections 65 and 67 of, the Act has in terms of Section 4(b)(ii) of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, to be exercised by a sub -committee consisting of the Executive Officer and two members of the Municipal Committee appointed for this purpose. In the present case, the impugned order Exhibit P. 5 of March 31, 1981, admittedly bears the signatures of only two members of the Municipal Committee, but not the Executive Officer. This being so, on the face of it, it was not a valid order, not having been passed by the competent authority and the demand for house -tax thereunder was, thus, not legal.

(3.) A reading of Romesh Kumar's case (supra), would show that it was founded upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee Chheharta : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1250, where Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: