Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) MR .A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The challenge in the instant writ petition filed by the Petitioner is to the demand notices (Annexures P3/T and P4/T) in so far as seeking to recover the arrears of house tax for the period before March 31,1989 (beyond three years) issued by the Municipal Committee, Moga (Respondent No. 1) (hereinafter to be referred as "the Respondent -Committee") under Section 80(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short "the Act").
(2.) THE case set up by the Petitioner, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that he is owner of the property in question, which comprises shops and several residential units, situated in the main bazar Moga city, within the municipal limits. The most of the units of property were stated to have been let out by his father in the year 1930 and almost the same tenants are in possession of the same by paying the meagre rent. It was claimed that the Respondent -Committee has illegally levied excess house tax on these units of property of the Petitioner. Accordingly, he received the impugned bill bearing No. 52, book No. 126 dated 16.6.87 for a sum of Rs.43,598 -01 P on account of house tax arrears for the years 1965 -66 to 1986 -87 and 1987 -88, in respect of the units of property IX 257, 258 , 263 to 269 etc. Another bill No. 53 book No. 126 dated 16.6.87 for a sum of Rs.1928 -68 P on account of arrears of house tax for the years 1975 -76 to 1986 -87 and 1987 -88 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12592 of 1993 respect of mortgaged property units bearing No. IX 259 -262. The Petitioner raised a protest in this regard but in vain. The Respondents again issued Bill No. 41 book No. 61 dated 3.12.90 for a sum of Rs.50,862 -09 P in respect of property units IX 257, 258, 263 to 269, 562 to 566, 588 to 645, 647, 648 to 658 and XIV 60, 714, 741 being arrears of house tax for these units for the years 1965 -66 to 1989 -90 and 1990 -91. The repeated representations filed by the Petitioner were stated to have been ignored, which necessitated him to file appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot (Respondent No. 2) under Section 84 of the Act, vide appeal (Annexure P11/T), which was stated to have been withdrawn by the learned Counsel to enable the Petitioner to file the instant writ petition in this regard. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the Petitioner that the impugned demand notices of house tax raised by the Respondent -Committee are illegal, arbitrary and without any basis because the tax has not been determined in terms of Section 80 of the Act. The Petitioner claimed that even the amount of arrears of house tax cannot be recovered after a period of three years from the date when it became due. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner sought quashment of the impugned demand notices of recovery of house tax in the manner indicated here -in -above.
(3.) THE Respondent -Committee contested the claim of the Petitioner and filed written statement, inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, in view of availability of the alternative remedy. According to the Respondent -Committee, as the Petitioner did not make the payment of the amount of house tax, therefore, it (Respondent -Committee) rightly issued the impugned demand notices, which he is liable to pay even beyond the period of three years. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.;