1. A civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an assessment order passed under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, where the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy of appeal and revision under the Act. 2. A suit against a Municipal Committee or its employees in respect of any act purporting to be done in their official capacity cannot be instituted without serving a one-month notice as required under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This Judgement shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1271, 753, 248, 793 of 1981 and 1027 of 1979 as in all these appeals common question of law and fact are involved.

2. Plaintiff in the aforesaid cases filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order of assessment, imposition, demand and recovery of house tax from them on property/properties situate at Ambala city is illegal, ultra vires, null and void and same cannot be enforced upon them with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipal Committee from proceeding to recover any amount of house tax on the property in dispute on the basis of orders so passed. In each of the aforesaid cases, the plaintiffs averred that demand of house tax raised is without notice, against the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short the Act) and otherwise unjust and so deserves to be quashed. According to the plaintiffs, no notice has been issued to plaintiffs nor they have been afforded any opportunity of hearing before evaluating their properties for the purposes of house tax. Even the property has been assessed ignoring the principles regarding annual value of the property as contained in the Act and interpreted in various judicial pronouncements of this Court. The impugned order of assessment dated 31.3.1974 is per se void as admitted case of even defendants is that plaintiffs had been asked to present and substantiate their objections on 30.3.1974 (it being Saturday and hence holiday) and thus no proper/effective opportunity has been granted to each one of the plaintiffs in these suits.

3. Defendant Municipal Committee put in appearance, filed written statement and raised few preliminary objections, namely, that suit in the present form is not maintainable without mandatory notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act; that the plaintiffs who were aggrieved could challenge the same by preferring an appeal and thereafter a revision also as envisaged Under Section 99 and 101 of the Haryana Municipal Act and so this way too the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. On merit, it was stated that the assessment has been made after duly complying with the law and procedure. Defendant further defended notice issued for appearance of plaintiffs on 30.3.1974 stating that merely for the fact that notice was issued for a date which was a public holiday does not make the assessment order a nullity especially when due opportunity has been afforded to the plaintiffs to substantiate their objections to the proposed house tax assessment. In addition thereto, defendant made reference to the plaintiffs filing writ petition in this court and its dismissal.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

1) Whether the impugned order imposing the house tax on the property in dispute and demanding the same from the plaintiffs is illegal, ultravires etc. and not liable to be enforced for the reasons as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

2) Whether the suit is barred by Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973? OPD.

3) Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.

4) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?

5) Relief.

5. Under issue No. 1, trial Court held the impugned order dated 31.3.1974 imposing house tax on the property of the plaintiffs and demand notice Exhibit P-3 to be illegal and hence not enforceable upon the plaintiffs. Under issue No.2, the Court held that the present suit is not barred by Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act. Under issued No.3, the court held that the civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the matter. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Municipal ¦ Committee preferred appeal in all the cases.

7. Learned counsel representing the appellants in all the appeals argued that the