VINOD KUMAR Vs. MINICIPAL COUNCIL FEROZEPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the defendant-Council) restraining the latter from effecting the recovery of house tax in respect of the property known as Jasuja Open Complex for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96. It was stated in the plaint that the said property was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant vide registered sale deeds dated 30-4-1993 and 27-5-1993. It was pleaded that the assessment of house tax for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 of the property in question was wrong because the defendant-Council has no jurisdiction to assess the house tax on the property in question as it does not fall within the local limits of the defendant-Council. It was further stated that house tax for the years 1986-87 to 1991-92 has also been declared illegal in different suits. No notice was served upon the plaintiff-appellant under Section 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was also stated that the defendant-Council, under duress, had recovered Rs. 26730/- as house tax from the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant-Council. In the written statement filed by the defendant-Council preliminary objections were taken to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; that no notice under Section 49 of the Act had been given to the defendant-Council by the plaintiff-appellant before filing the suit; that the plaintiff-appellant has not availed the efficacious remedies provided under the Act; and that the plaintiff-appellant is estopped from filing the present suit especially when the amount of Rs. 26730/- towards the house tax for the year 1992-93 had already been deposited by the plaintiff-appellant. On merits, it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the property in dispute and that house tax had been validly imposed after adopting due formalities. It was further stated that the property in question is situated within the municipal limits of defendant-Council. Notice under Sections 65 and 67 of the Act was given to the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues besides that of relief :-