BANARSI DASS MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 19 matters which have been admitted to be heard by a Full Bench. Two are Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2175 and 5488 of 1986 and seventeen are Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 264, 283 to 294, 321 to 326, 342 and 343 of 1980.

(2.) THE Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is the constesting party on one side in these matters. And the contestants on the other side are house-tax payers. Their dispute with the Corporation and its officers is with regard to the method of the assessment of house-tax under the provisitions of Section 93 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Act' ). The house-tax payers rely on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. Ludhiana v. The Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, (1985-1) 87 P. L. R. 757. and on the other hand the Corporation relies on a Division Bench decision in Hukam Chand v. The State of Punjab. , 1979 (1) L. L. R. 124. To begin with, in the first of such cases i e. CWP No. 2175 of 1986, the Motion Bench found a conflict in the afore-referred to two decisions and thus admitted the case to a Full Bench, vacating interim stay. Likewise, another Motion Bench followed suit in CWP No. 5488 of 1986 and ordered the said case to be heard with CWP No, 2175 of 1986 by a Full Bench. Here also the stay was vacated, but an undertaking of the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation was recorded that if as a result of the decision of the writ petition, any amount of tax paid for the year 1986-87 becomes refundable to the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The 17 Letters Patent Appeals are against a common judgment of a Single Bench of this Court, which were also admitted by the Motion Bench to a Full Bench and ordered to be heard with CWP No. 2175 of 1986 The Single Bench had applied Punjab Concast Steel Ltd. 's case (supra) in allowing the writ petitions of the house-tax assessees, remitting the cases back for taking decision under clause (b) of Section 93 of the Corporation Act. It is the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, who is the Letters Patent Appellant in these cases. This is how these matters are placed before us as a bunch.

(3.) FOR the purposes of disposing of these matters, we shall take up facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 2175 of 1986. The petitioner, Banarsi Dass Mahajan, is the owner of a property numbered 2096-F/xv situated at Head Water Works, Amritsar. The annual letting value of this property was determined at Rs. 6,000/- with effect from 1-4-1975 vide order Annexure P-l passed by the Administrator, Municipality, Amritsar under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Act') as by that time the Corporation Act had not come into vogue The Corporation Act came into force with effect from 31st December, 1976. It appears that the annual rental value so determined at the rate of Rs. 6. 000/- per annum continued applying in the succeeding years On 16-10-1982, however, a notice was sent by the Corporation to the petitioner under Section 103 of the Corporation Act, declaring its intention to enhance the annual rental value to Rs. 21,210/- for the year 1982-83. The petitioner filed written objections. The Executive Officer of the Corporation rejected the objections of the petitioner, treating the property as a single self-occupied unit, and determined its annual rental value at Rs. 21,210/- apparently under Section 93 (c) of the Corporation Act This figure was arrived at by the method devised in Section 93 (c) read with the provisos. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. contending that the assessment of the annual letting value should have been under clause (b) of Section 93 of the Corporation Act, on the basis of the rent which could reasonably be fetched under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ' ). The Commissioner repelled the contention and affirmed the assessment vide order dated May 20, 1985, Annex are P-6. It is to challenge the said order that CWP No. 2175 of 1986 has been filed.