106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.03.2025 M.C. Rewari and another .....Appellants Versus EMM-Tax Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Rewari .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Rattewal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, advocate for the respondent.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.(Oral)

Defendants are in second appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. appellants as defendants and respondent as plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff instituted suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from charging house tax on the property owned by the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of property, which is situated out of the municipal limits. He was issued notice dated 01.02.1988 proposing to assess house tax thereon. Vide order dated 28.03.1988 passed without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff, the property was assessed to house tax. Plaintiff filed appeal which was dismissed by the Collector, Narnaul vide order dated 14.09.1988. Plaintiff filed instant suit impugning notice dated 01.02.1988 and orders dated

28.03.1988 and 14.09.1988.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants claiming that the property in question falls within the municipal limits of Rewari. Plaintiff was served with the notice dated 01.02.1988. Pursuant thereto, annual rental value of the premises was assessed at Rs.1,20,000/- vide order dated 28.03.1988. Plaintiff-Company preferred appeal which was dismissed by Collector, Narnaul vide order dated 14.09.1988. Defendants also raised issue regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit.

5. Court of the First Instance, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act? OPD.

4. Relief.”

6. Court of the First Instance decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff. While deciding issue No.3, Court of the First Instance found that prior to institution of the suit, the plaintiff had already paid house tax vide exhibits PW1/5 and PW1/6 dated 05.04.1988 and 13.07.1989. The suit filed by plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.

7. Unsuccessful, plaintiff approached Lower Appellate Court.

8. Lower Appellate Court while deciding issue No.1 came to the conclusion that plaintiff successfully proved that the defendants failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 76 to Section 80 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. No criteria was spelled out in the notice dated 01.02.1988 for assessing the annual rental value of the premises in question. No assessment list was prepared under Section 76 of the Act. No public notice was given under Section 77 of the Act. List was never settled under Section 79 and thus the house tax imposed, cannot be sustained. Lower Appellate Court further found that it being a case of the violation of the procedure laid down in the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. While allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff, Lower Appellate Court granted Municipal Committee opportunity to impose house tax after following due procedure laid down under the law and allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the primary issue involved in the instant appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10. Admittedly, plaintiff prior to filing of the civil suit, preferred appeal against the imposition of house tax and the order of assessment. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector. The said order is also subject matter of challenge in the present suit.

11. Section 99, Section 100, Section 100-A and Section 101 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 read