Allowed¶51

M.C. Sangrur v. Ranbir Singh & Other

Civil Court jurisdiction – House tax assessment

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2025RSA/910/1996

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-910-1996 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Mandeep Pannu, J., pronounced 11.12.2025): Municipal Committee, Sangrur's regular second appeal against the District Judge's decree (15.11.1995) declaring house tax assessment orders dated 19.12.1989 and 19.12.1991 illegal. Held: Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred by Sections 84 and 86, Punjab Municipal Act, 1911; statutory appeal to Deputy Commissioner availed; Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 applied; lower appellate court judgment set aside, Trial Court decree restored; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court restored; Regular Second Appeal allowed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶51

M.C. Sangrur Vs Ranbir Singh & Other — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court restored; Regular Second Appeal allowed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' suit challenging the house tax assessment orders, or whether the jurisdiction is barred by Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which provide a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters relating to assessment or re-assessment of house tax; Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 expressly provide a complete mechanism for challenging an assessment.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Grievances relating to assessment must be adjudicated only in the manner prescribed under the Act; the plaintiff had admittedly already availed the statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, and applying Munshi Ram (AIR 1979 SC 1250) the dispute falls squarely within the exclusive domain of the Municipal Committee and the appellate authority under the Act.

¶46

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly held that the civil suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, and no ground is made out to take a contrary view.ratio¶46
The finding of the lower appellate Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained; it overlooked the binding principle in Munshi Ram's case and assumed jurisdiction where none existed, making its conclusion that the suit was maintainable unsustainable in law.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Court jurisdiction – House tax assessment – Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Ss. 84 & 86 – Held: jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters relating to assessment or re-assessment of house tax; the Act provides a complete mechanism including a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which the plaintiff had admittedly availed. Following Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 (where a statute creates a special right and a specific remedy, civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred), the first appellate court's finding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction was patently erroneous; its judgment and decree set aside and the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit restored. Regular Second Appeal allowed.

¶1

RSA-910-1996 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) Reserved on:-10.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 11.12.2025 Uploaded on:-11.12.2025

¶6

Whether only ope r ative part of the judgment is Pronounced or th e full judgment is pronounced:

¶7

operative part/full judgment

¶8

Municipal Com m ittee, Sangrur ....Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Ranbir Singh a n d Another ....Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶12

Present: M r . Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for t he appellant.

¶13

-.-

¶14

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶15

Pr e sent regular second appeal h as been filed by the defend a ntappellant again s t the judgment and decree date d 15.11.1995 passed by the lear n ed District Judge, S angrur, whereby the judgment a nd decree dated 30.04.1994 pa s sed by the trial Cou r t, was set aside.

¶16

Brief Facts

¶17

Br i efly stated, the plaintiffs, Ranb i r Singh and his co-plaintiff, are the claimed owner s of Municipal Property Unit N o. B-5/424, situated in Prem Basti within the Mu n icipal Limits of Sangrur. Aft e r the death of Baldev Singh, the property was p a rtitioned among the plaintiffs, who have been in occupation and collecting rent fr om four shops forming part of t he said property.

¶18

Th e grievance of the plaintiffs is t h at the Executive Officer, Munic i pal Committee, Sa n grur, vide orders dated 19.12. 1 989 and 19.12.1991, wrongly and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 2 -

¶20

illegally assessed the rental value/house ta x of the property, and that s u ch assessment w a s made jointly, without fol l owing the mandatory proce d ure prescribed und e r the Punjab Municipal Act, 1 911, the East Punjab Urban R ent Restriction Act, and the rules governing assess m ent of house tax.

¶21

It i s their case that the Committee p assed the impugned orders wit h out affording any proper opportunity of hearing a n d without considering the fact t hat the property w a s more than 40 years old at th e time of assessment. They fur t her asserted that a notice under Section 49 of t h e Municipal Committee Act w as served, but no r eply was furnished by the Co m mittee. An earlier appeal prefe r red by the plaintif f s before the Deputy Commis s ioner, Sangrur, against the in i tial assessment or d er dated 19.12.1989, was also dismissed without adequa t ely examining the fa cts.

¶22

Th e plaintiffs alleged that the Municipal Committee was not competent to le v y house tax, as the property is situated in the area of Prem B a sti, and according to them, Prem Basti was not a fu lly served area, hence not elig i ble for such levy. The plaintiffs thus sought a declaration that the impug n ed assessment ord e rs were illegal, void, arbitrary, and not binding upon them, al o ng with a consequ e ntial relief of permanent injunc t ion restraining the Committee f r om recovering the a ssessed tax.

¶23

In t he written statement filed by the defendant–Municipal Commit t ee, it was pleaded t hat the property in question, U n it No. B-5/424, stands in the n a me of Baldev Sing h son of Madan Singh, as per th e Municipal records, and nowher e in the records is it shown that, after the death of B aldev Singh, Ranbir Singh bec a me

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

the owner of t h e said property. It was assert e d that the plaintiffs had no l o cus standi to challe n ge the assessment orders. 7. Th e defendants further contended t h at the assessment of house tax h ad been made stri c tly in accordance with law a n d as per the procedure prescri b ed under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The y submitted that no illegality w as committed by t h e Committee in finalising the rental value of the property, and the orders dated 1 9 .12.1989 and 19.12.1991 we r e duly passed by the compe t ent authority. It wa s also claimed that the Commit t ee had taken up the legal objec t ion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction t o entertain such matters bec a use assessment of house tax falls within the e x clusive domain of the statu t ory authorities und e r the Municipal Act.

¶27

It w as additionally pleaded that the earlier assessment was d uly finalised after issuing a notice, Ex.D1, o n 22.08.1980, and thereafter the Committee rec o nsidered the matter on various d ates, passing decisions reflecte d in Ex.D3, Ex.D4, Ex. D5, Ex.D6 and Ex. D7. T h e defendants also asserted that, as per the Munici p al record, Baldev Singh was the recorded owner, and that the property compr i sed four shops and a residenti a l unit, all assessable for house t ax. According to t h e Committee, the shops were s i tuated on the main road, justif y ing the assessed re n tal value.

¶28

Th e Committee denied that any i llegality or procedural irregul a rity had occurred a n d contended that the plaintif f had already availed the statu t ory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissi o ner, which was dismissed. He n ce, the civil suit w as not maintainable. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs had n o t come to the court with clean h ands.

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 4 -

¶31

Findings of the trial Court

¶32

Th e Trial Court concluded that the assessment of house tax carried out by the Municip a l Committee was validly mad e in accordance with the provis i ons of the Punjab Municipal Act, and that the p laintiffs had already availed the statutory reme d y of appeal before the Deput y Commissioner, who upheld the assessment. H o lding that the Civil Court h a d no jurisdiction to entertai n a challenge to an assessment order passed under the Municipal Act, the Trial C o urt dismissed the s u it, observing that the plaintiffs h ad failed to establish any illega l ity, procedural viol a tion, or excess of authority o n the part of the Committee t hat would justify in t erference by a Civil Court.

¶33

Findings of the lower Appellate Court

¶34

Th e Lower Appellate Court revers e d the finding of the Trial Cour t on the question of jurisdiction and held that the j u risdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit is not barred. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had succeede d in proving that th e Municipal Committee had not acted in accordance with law w h ile determining th e rental value, as the Committe e considered the construction t o be newly built an d the shops to be located on a main road without any suppor t ing material. The c o urt further found that the Co m mittee failed to prove that pr o per notices were s e rved on the plaintiffs before passing the impugned assess m ent orders.

¶35

It a lso held that the Committee f ailed to produce any evidenc e to show on what b asis the rental value had been f i xed or that the earlier objection s of the plaintiffs w e re duly considered. The appella t e court noted that the plaintiffs h ad led evidence sh o wing that the property was mo r e than 40 years old and situate d in

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 5 -

¶38

an undevelope d area lacking basic amenities. The Municipal Committee did not rebut these fac t s. The appellate court, theref o re, concluded that the assess m ent orders were ar b itrary, not based on any cogent material, and violative of the procedure prescribed by law.

¶39

O n these findings, the Lower App e llate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judg m ent and decree of the Trial Cou r t, and decreed the suit in favou r of the plaintiffs b y declaring the assessment orde r s dated 19.12.1989 and 19.12.1 9 91 as illegal, invalid, and not binding on the plaintiffs. 14. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the defendant-Mun i cipal Committee, Sangrur has filed the present regular sec o nd appeal.

¶40

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶41

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t submits that the judgment and decree passed b y the learned lower appellate C ourt suffers from illegality. I t is contended that t he lower appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has misinterpreted as well as misconstrued the material produce d by the appellant. C ounsel further argues that t h e appellate Court overlooked the provisions of S e ctions 84 and 86 of the Punja b Municipal Act, which clearly bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters pertaining to municipal taxat i on. According to h i m, such disputes can be adjud i cated only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Municip a l Act.

¶42

Findings of this Court

¶43

Af t er considering the pleadings, e v idence, and the statutory schem e of the Punjab Mu n icipal Act, 1911, it is evident th a t the jurisdiction of the Civil C o urt

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 6 -

¶46

is barred in ma t ters relating to assessment or r e -assessment of house tax. Sections 84 and 86 of the Act expressly provide a com p lete mechanism for challengin g an assessment, inc l uding a statutory appeal befor e the Deputy Commissioner, w h ich the plaintiff h a s admittedly already availed. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Munshi Ram vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 , has authoritatively held that where a revenue s t atute creates a special right and provides a spe c ific remedy in a particular for u m, the civil court’s jurisdictio n is impliedly barre d , and grievances relating to as s essment must be adjudicated o nly in the manner p r escribed under the Act. Applyi n g this settled principle, the dis p ute raised by the plaintiff pertains solely to the leg a lity, correctness, and procedur e of assessment of h ouse tax, which squarely falls w ithin the exclusive domain of the Municipal Co m mittee and the appellate autho r ity under the Act. The trial C o urt therefore rightl y held that the civil suit is not m aintainable for want of jurisdict i on, and no ground is made out to take a contrary vi e w.

¶47

Th e finding of the lower appellat e Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred is patently errone o us and cannot be sustained. T he appellate Court failed to appreciate that the co n troversy in the present case rel a tes exclusively to t he assessment, reassessment a n d levy of house tax, a field w h ich stands complet e ly covered by the special ma c hinery provided under the Pu n jab Municipal Act, 1911. Sections 84 and 86 of th e Act expressly oust the jurisdic t ion of the Civil C o urt by necessary implication, as they mandate that grieva n ces against assessment must be adjudicated only th r ough the statutory appellate for u m. The Hon’ble S u preme Court in Munshi Ram’s case (supra) , has categorically h eld that once a st a tute creates a special right a n d provides a special remedy, the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-910-1996 (O&M) - 7 -

¶49

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly b arred. The lower appellate C o urt overlooked this binding principle and erroneou s ly assumed jurisdiction where none existed. Theref o re, its conclusion that the suit was maintainable before the C ivil Court is unsust a inable in law.

¶50

Conclusion

¶51

Fo r the reasons recorded above, t h is Court is of the considered view that the learned Lower Appellate Court erred i n law in holding that the Civil C o urt had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit an d in setting aside the well-reaso n ed judgment of t h e Trial Court. The findings o f the Trial Court on the issu e of jurisdiction were fully justified in view of the s t atutory bar contained in the Pu n jab Municipal Act a nd the binding precedents gove r ning the field. 19. Co n sequently, the judgment and d e cree of the Lower Appellate C o urt cannot be susta i ned and are hereby set aside. T h e judgment and decree of the T rial Court are restor e d. As a result, the present Reg u lar Second Appeal is allowed 20. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶52

December 11, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶53

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M.C. Sangrur v. Ranbir Singh & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. Sangrur v. Ranbir Singh & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Singh Vs Hari Parkash

Seeta Bai and Others Vs Sadha Nand

Satwant and Ors. Vs Bhagwan Dass Sehgal and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Jagir Singh

Rai Sahib Deceased through His Lrs and Another Vs Karam Singh Deceased and Others

Prem Singh and Others Vs Karam Singh Deceased and Others