Quashed

M/S Kumar Auto Service v. Addl. Dy. Commissioner Karnal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2010CWP/4895/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged house tax assessments under Section 69 of Haryana Municipal Act, arguing assessment ignored fair rent under Rent Restriction laws and lacked mandatory government notification. Court quashed impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 25.11.1986 and 9.1.1989 assessing house tax are quashed. Municipal Committee directed to take appropriate action as per law.

M/S Kumar Auto Service Vs Addl. Dy. Commissioner… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.W.P.No. 4895 of 1989

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.W.P.No. 4895 of 1989 Date of Decision : 12.11.2010

¶5

M/S. Kumar Auto Service, XVIII-1052 G.T.Road, Karnal Petitioner.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Additional Deputy Commissioner and others. Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶9

Present:- None.

¶10

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶13

RITU BAHRI,J.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance

¶15

of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.11.1986 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 9.1.1989 (Annexure P-2) whereby house tax assessment has been made for the year 1985-86 of Unit No. XVIII 1052 situated in the Municipal Limits of Karnal.

¶16

C.W.P.No. 4895 of 1989

¶17

¶18

Brief Facts:-

¶19

Property in question was assessed for housetax for Rs.196.50 paise minus 20% rebate i.e. Rs.157.50 paise. In the year, 1985, an assessment was made and a bill of Rs.3937.50/- paise was sent to the petitioner. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reduced rental value from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.25000/-per annum. This order was passed on 25.11.1986 (Annexure P-1). On Appeal, the Joint Secretary, Local Government, Haryana reduced the rental value to Rs.18000/- per annum from Rs.25,000/-, as per order dated 9.1.1989 (Annexure P-2)

¶20

This order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition on the ground that the authorities have not calculated the house tax on the basis of fair rent fixed under the law relating to Rent Restriction in force. While calculating the annual value, fair rent under the law relating to the Rent Restriction is to be followed. The annual value calculated thus cannot be more than the fair rent. The imposition of house tax is to be in accordance with Section 69 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 ( hereinafter called as “the Act”). As per Section 69(a) of the Act, tax payable by the owner of the building and land would not be less than 7-1/2% and not more than

¶21

C.W.P.No. 4895 of 1989

¶22

¶23

15% of the tax as per notification issued by the State Government fixing minimum or maximum percentage of annual value. The authorities cannot impose the house tax without notification which is mandatory under Section 69 of the Act. No fair rent has been fixed or assessed for the building in question. Hence the authorities have increased the house tax from Rs.157.50 to Rs.3937.50/- paise without following the procedure laid down in Section 69 of the Act.

¶24

Reference has been made by the petitioner to nearby building which is a petrol pump of Kirpal Singh. The house tax of this building has been assessed at Rs.7200/- per annum only.

¶25

After going through the orders dated 25.11.1986 (Annexure P-1) and 9.1.1989 (Annexure P-2), it is clear that the Administrator, Municipal Committee, has assessed the annual value without referring to any fair rent assessed under the Rent Restriction Act. No notification under Section 69 of the Act has been issued by the Municipal Committee enabling the assessment of annual rental value.

¶26

The petitioner has claimed parity with the Petrol Pump of Kirpal Singh which has been assessed at Rs.7200/- per annum. There is a huge difference of

¶27

¶28

C.W.P.No. 4895 of 1989

¶29

assessment of annual rental value from Rs.7200/- to Rs.18,000/-. This has not been repelled and answered by the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee has chosen not to file written statement in this petition. Taking the contents of the writ petition to be correct, the order dated 25.11.1986 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 9.1.1989 (Annexure P-2) are quashed. The Municipal Committee may take appropriate action as per law.

¶30

Civil Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶31

12.11.2010. ( RITU BAHRI) Anoop JUDGE

M/S Kumar Auto Service v. Addl. Dy. Commissioner Karnal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kumar Auto Service v. Addl. Dy. Commissioner Karnal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kamaljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdev Ramesh Satija Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Subash Chander and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.