CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. PADAM PARSHAD MAHAVIR PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent M/s Padam Parshad Mahavir Parshad filed the suit alleging that it was one of the owners of bungalow Nos. 65/66 situated on The Mall, Ambala Cantt. It had been paying house-tax and property-tax to the Cantt. Board. In spite of that the Board has raised various demands in respect of both the bungalows towards arrears of house-tax and water-tax. In any case according to the plaintiff, the water-tax could not be realised by the Cantt. Board as it could not be levied by the Municipal Committee as per decision of this Court reported in M/s Khalsa Shoe Co. v. Municipal Committee, Ambala City,1973 PunLR 202. It was further alleged that the Board has no right to disconnect the water supply of the plaintiff on account of non-payment of water-tax. The suit was contested on the plea that the Board was competent to charge the water-tax. Since the plaintiff was in arrears of the house-tax as well as of the water-tax, the Board was competent to realise the amount. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge relying upon judgment of this Court referred to above i.e. M/s Khalsa Shoe Co's case , came to the conclusion that the imposition of the water-tax by the Board was unauthorised. In view of that finding plaintiff's suit was decreed for injunction to the effect that the Board was restrained from disconnecting the supply of the water to the premises of the plaintiff for non-payment of the awter-tax. Dissatisfied with the same the Cantt. Board has filed the second appeal in this Court. Since no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, notice was issued to the Advocate General, Haryana, vide order dated April 8, 1987, to assist this Court in the matter as the question involved is as to whether the Cantt. Board is entitled to impose the water-tax/water charges or not.

(2.) Mr. R.P. Dahiya, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General, Haryana stated at the bar that after going through the relevant provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 , the Board was competent to impose the water-tax and the finding of the lower Appellate Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal.

(3.) It may be stated that the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala mainly relied upon the judgment of this Court. M/s Khalsa Shoe Co. . That judgment was delivered on November 6, 1972. Therein the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as applicable to the State of Haryana were considered. After the said judgment Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), was enacted. Section 70 of the said Act provides the taxes that may be imposed by the Municipal Act, 1911. Clause (xv) of Section 70 of the Haryana Act corresponds to sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Punjab Act and what prevailed with this Court in M/s Khalsa Shoe Co's case was that when the Municipal Committee Act was amended in 1923, it expressly repealed the provision empowering the Municipality to impose water-tax and therefore in that situation it could not be said that the legislature entitled that Municipal Committee to impose the same tax under section 61(2) of the Act. Therefore, in that case the appeal was allowed and the suit decreed. But that caseand the case in hand are different. That was a case against the Municipal Committee and the present is a case against the Cantt. Board and point to be seen is whether the Cantt. Board under the Cantonment Act, 1924 read with Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 can impose the water tax.