2007 Supreme(P&H) 1719
2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No.2573 of 1984 (O&M)
Municipal Committee Bhantinda
v.
Ravinder Kumar
{Decided on 19/09/2007}
For the Appellant:Mr. I. P.S. Doabia, Advocate with Mr. J.K. Kamboj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
House Tax--Challenge to assessment--Remedy available under statute--Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
Headnote:Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Sections 84 to 86--Suit for permanent injunction--Challenge to the assessment of house tax--Remedy for appeal is available to the plaintiff under the statute--Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiff to challenge the assessment or imposition of house tax. (Para 7)
Vinod K. Sharma. J. (Oral)- This regular second appeal raises the following substantial question of law:
“Whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred when a statute statute provides a special remedy to an aggrieved party like a matter of appeal?”
2. The plaintiff respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipal Committee from recovering the house tax @ 3726/- (Rs. Three thousand seven hundred and twenty six only) annually for the years 1977 to 1981 regarding the building No. 4468 on the ground that the plaintiffs are owner of the building in question and the annual rental value of the same was assessed as Rs.720/- (Rs. Seven hundred and twenty only). The Municipal Committee then assessed the annual value of the building in question as Rs.27600/- (Rs. Twenty seven thousand and six hundred only) annually for the year 1977 against law and facts and thereon assessed the house tax @ Rs.3726/- (Rs. Three thousand. seven hundred and twenty six only). It was claimed that the assessment of the said annual rental value of Rs.27600/- (Rs. Twenty seven thousand and six hundred only) for the building in question was illegal, void, arbitrary, without authority and against the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
3. The appellant defendant filed written statement and took a plea that the suit was not competent as no notice under Section 49 of the Act was given to the defendant before filing the suit. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was also challenged and it was also pleaded that the plaintiff respondents were estopped by their own act and conduct from challenging the assessment in question. The assessment of the rental value was defended on the plea that no objection against the said assessment was filed and claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed with special costs.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court pleased to frame the following issues:
1. Whether the assessment of house tax for the year 1977 78 to 80-81 made by the defendant Committee is illegal, arbitrary and ineffective ? OPP
2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not competent without notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct ? OPD
5. Relief.
5. Issues No.1 & 2 were taken together and it was held that the assessment was illegal and arbitrary as the Municipal Committee has failed to follow the settled law and provisions of the Act and in view of this finding, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that as the tax/enhancement thereof was not permitted under the Act, therefore, no bar can be imposed against the party to approach the Civil Court. It was held that provisions of Section 84 of the Act were merely confined to those acts which are within the powers of the authorities and the bar mentioned did not apply to the assessment which was not done in accordance with law. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld and the suit was decreed. The appeal against the said order also failed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was rejected by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Municipal Committee Ladwa Vs. Daryat Lal and others 1982 Shimla Law Journal 362 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down that where tax is imposed without following the due procedure laid down under the law and the assessee has not exhausted remedies under Sections 84 to 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, suit for permanent injunction was competent before the Civil Court and in view of this, finding recorded by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.D.M.C. Vs. Satish Chand (deceased) by LR Ra