KARAMBIR SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, THANESAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovering any amount as house tax in pursuance of the notices dated 1.3.2003, Exhibit P-1 to P-6, was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant is owner of the residential house and several other properties situated in Ward No. 5, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The defendant-Municipal Council has issued six bills for recovery of arrears of house tax. The said notices were challenged by the plaintiff, inter-alia, on the ground that no public notice under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of The Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued by the defendant and that defendant has failed to comply with the mandatory procedure given under Sections 76 to 79, 94 and 95 of the Act. The objections filed by the plaintiff were not taken into consideration and the notices Exhibit P-8 to P-13, for revision of the house tax, were illegally issued and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff for making final assessment. It was also pointed out that the challenge of the plaintiff in respect of the earlier house tax assessment for the year 1997-98, is pending in a separate suit.The defendant contested the said suit and alleged that the bills Exhibit P-1 to P-6 have been issued for recovery of house tax in accordance with law and that the plaintiff has not availed the remedy of appeal under Section 99 of the Act and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The Exhibit P-1 to P-6 are the house tax demand bills dated 1.3.2002 for the year 2001-02, in respect of six separate properties of the plaintiff. Exhibit P-8 to P-13 are the notices issued to the plaintiff under Section 78 of the Act, for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002. Exhibit P-14 are the objections dated 15.1.2002 and Exhibit P-17 is the order dated 15.10.200 1, passed by the Municipal Council imposing house tax.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that the complete procedure, established under the Act, was followed before issuance of the bills. Exhibit P-1 to P-6. The objections filed by the plaintiff, Exhibit P-14, to the notices Exhibit P-8 to P-13, were considered by the Sub Committee constituted on 14.1.2002, vide Exhibit P-15. It has been further found by the learned First Appellate Court that the counsel for the plaintiff had represented the plaintiff before the defendant and the bills were received by him. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act, it was held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as tax has been imposed after complying with the provisions of the Act.