IMPORTANT POINT
A Permanent Lok Adalat cannot entertain disputes if the applicant has previously approached other courts regarding the same matter, as it lacks jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.1-Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala, whereby the application No.772 of 2014 instituted by the respondent No.2-applicant was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to refund the difference of amount of Rs.4333/- from the year 1999-2000 to 2011-2012 along with interest @ 8% per annum.

2. Briefly summarized, the case of respondent No.2-applicant is that he is owner in possession of property No.7742/5-1 situated at Desi Mehmandari, Opposite Bus Stand, Patiala. The property in question was assessed to house tax @ Rs.486/- per annum which the respondent No.2- applicant paid till 1996-97. It was averred that the house tax of the property was enhanced in the year 1999-2000 to Rs.8100/- per year which was highly exaggerated and no opportunity of hearing to respondent No.2-applicant was provided in this regard by the House Tax Assessment Committee. Respondent No.2-applicant approached the authorities i.e. Municipal Corporation, Patiala by way of a representation that the property was lying vacant and was never given on rent, hence, the same was accordingly entitled to be exempted from house tax. However, the needful was not done and the respondent No.2-applicant claimed to have been pressurized to deposit the house tax. The same was deposited vide Book No.637 Receipt No. 95 dated 31.03.2007 under protest and without prejudice to his rights. He continued to deposit the same without any prejudice and raised the issue with the competent Authority. Since a huge amount was being demanded on account of wrong assessment of house tax and the illegality was not being rectified despite the requests, respondent No.2-applicant preferred an application under Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

3. Reply was filed by the petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Patiala, raising various issues and objections and it also contested the claim of respondent No.2-applicant asserting that the property in question was assessed to house tax which was enhanced in the year 1999-2000 as per applicable rules. It was averred that at that point of time, an appeal had been preferred by the respondent No.2-applicant before the Divisional Commissioner which was also dismissed on 18.07.2006 and the above said amount was deposited thereafter.

4. Efforts were made to amicably resolve the dispute between the parties, however, it failed to fructify into a mutual settlement. Consequently, adjudication of the dispute under Section 22 C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala. The application was eventually allowed vide order dated 09.05.2017 holding that the house tax of the property in question was enhanced in the year 1999-2000 to Rs.8100/- per year without giving any opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.2-applicant and that the property in dispute was reassessed to house tax @ Rs.3767/- per year for the year 2011-12, hence, the assessment was wrong and liable to be rectified. The respondent No.2-applicant was entitled to refund of the amount along with interest @ 8% per annum.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. The award was impugned, inter alia, on the ground of maintainability of the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala, more so, when the respondent No.2 had already approached the Courts for the said relief. Further, it was also impugned on the ground that an issue of assessment of house tax was not within the jurisdiction and scope of powers vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

7. In the reply filed, the respondent No.2-applicant has relied upon the claim raised in the application itself and reiterated the said factual aspect including that there was a