Geeta Devi v. Municipal Corporation Bathinda and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/13500/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
NO.13500 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
NO.13500 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13500 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 23, 2012
Geeta Devi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. S. K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vanish Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner purchased property No.5071 in the residential area of Bathinda through a registered sale deed, where he is having a shop. The assessment of the shop was 3,000/- and the house tax accordingly charged was 270/- per annum. In the year 2005, the damaged door was replaced with double shutter. On this basis or otherwise, the house tax was enhanced from 270/- to 4050/- as the annual assessment of the property was assessed as `27,000/-. Notice to this effect was given to the petitioner, who filed
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13500 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
a revision. Ultimately, the assessment has been reduced to `21,600/-. The counsel says that this is also arbitrary on various grounds, which are pleaded in the writ petition.
Prima-facie, the writ Court will not be equipped with anything to decide whether the assessment made by the respondentauthorities is excessive or adequate. If this assessment is made in any legal manner by respondent No.3, the same can not be interfered with by this Court merely on the ground that assessment is on higher side. This is to be considered by respondent authorities alone. If so desired, the petitioner may make a fresh representation to respondent No.3, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass any appropriate order. It is not appropriate to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in such like matters.
The writ petition shall otherwise stands dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
July 23, 2012 khurmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a tax assessment order merely on the ground that it is excessive.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh representation to the relevant authorities.
Geeta Devi
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court