The annual value of a property for the purpose of assessment of house tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is to be determined in accordance with the criteria laid down under Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, and the method of assessment under Section 3(1)(c) can only be adopted if the annual value cannot be determined under clause (b).

R.L. Anand, J. - Sarvshri R.P. Mayor, Partap Mayor and Dev Kishan Mayor petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar, through its Commissioner, and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction, quashing the notice dated 2nd August, 1976 (Annexure P-1) and the orders dated 21st February, 1979 (Annexure P-5) and 30th April, 1980 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

2. It has been averred by the petitioners that they are the owners of property No. BIY/I-1552 situated at Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. The Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, vide order Annexure P-5 fixed the House Tax on the basis of the per square feet upon the value of the land. Upto the year 1974-75 the property referred to above was being assessed to House Tax at the annual rental value of Rs. 2160/- per annum. The Municipal Corporatioin, Jalandhar, sent a notice dated 2.8.1975 under Section 67(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act) proposing an enhanced annual rental value of Rs. 2160/- to Rs. 38,263/-. On the receipt of this notice (Annexure P-1) the petitioners filed objections before the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Jalandhar, on 23.8.1976 (Annexure P-2). These objections did not find favour of the Sub Committee of the Municipal Committee which heard the objections on 1.12.1976 and it was stated in Annexure P-3 dated 1.12.1976 that the petitioners had made some additions. The Sub Committee increased the annual rental value under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 31,114/- with effect from 1.4.1976. The petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, under Section 84 of the Act (Annexure P-4). The appeal came up for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner on 3.5.1978 and the case was remanded with orders for fresh assessment. In the meanwhile the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act came into operation and the appeal was heard by the Commissioner, as provided under the said Act. Before the Commissioner, the petitioners filed valuation certificate and it was pleaded that there was no justification for addition to the annual rental value, which was quite fairly determined at Rs. 2160/-. However, the Commissioner did not find favour with the objections and arbitrarily increased the annual rental value to Rs. 31,114/- by adopting the formula that the value of the land was Rs. 2000/- per Marlas. The cost was determined at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. for the tin construction, and Rs. 20/- for the Bala and wood construction, and Rs. 25/- for the lintal construction. It has been averred by the petitioners that the method of valuation adopted by the Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) is totally against the recognised methods. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 146 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and again repeated that no addition or alterations had been made on the property in dispute from the date of its construction and even after the assessment year 1974-75. The appeal came up for hearing before respondent No. 2, i.e. the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and vide order dated 30.4.1980 respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by respondent No. 1. The order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division is Annexure P-7. Respondent No. 2 held that the previous order for the assessment year 1974-75 was based upon a wrong presumption that the area of the property in dispute was 4 Kanals only whereas the building was found to be on a land measuring 7 Kanals 3 Marla. It was also held that the building was not rented out and was occupied by the landowner himself and, therefore, the annual rental value was to be assessed under Section 3(1)(c) and the amount to be determ