- (1.) The petitioners through this bunch of writ petitions have approached this Court to challenge the house tax bills, which have been levied and recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that these are illegal, discriminatory and without jurisdiction, besides being malafide and void abinitio. The ground of challenge may vary to an extent but main focus in these is on the levy of house tax. The challenge raised in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7686 of 2011, 11208 of 2009, 5151, 5159, 6548, 8482, 8483, 8484, 8485, 8486, 8487, 8488, 8489, 8490, 8982, 8983, 8984, 8985, 8986, 8987, 8988, 8989, 8990, 8991, 8992, 8993, 8994, 8995, 8996, 8997, 8998, 8999, 9000, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 9007, 9008 and 9009 of 2011 appears to be common and, thus, these are being taken together for discussion and decision. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12060, 15103 of 2009 and 20925 of 2010 are being separately dealt with in view of different nature of challenge though a slight one as made in these writ petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 4193 of 2012, being different is dealt with separately. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7686 of 2011 and Other Connected Cases as Noted Above While disposing of this bunch of Writ Petitions referred to above, the facts are being noted from Civil Writ Petition No. 7686 of 2011. It is alleged that Municipal Corporation, Patiala (respondent No. 2) has been charging house tax without any jurisdiction from the petitioners. Reference is made to a notice issued under Section 103(d) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short, "the Act") for re-assessment of the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of house tax on 21.2.2011. Objections were filed on 21.3.2011. In fact, respondent No. 2 had issued a house tax bill on 25.6.2010. Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a notice under Section 137 of the Act on 14.10.2010. A notice under Section 138 of the Act was issued on 21.12.2010. Reference is made to one letter, whereby the Officer of the improvement Trust, Patiala, stated that Choti Baradari Scheme is under the control of respondent No. 3 i.e. the improvement Trust. The petitioners accordingly challenge this notice on the ground that the Municipal Corporation has no right to levy the house tax.
(2.) The improvement Trust (respondent No. 3) in its reply has, however, stated that the Trust has completed the work and has transferred the properties to Municipal Corporation. In the reply filed by Municipal Corporation, some preliminary objections are raised in regard to maintainability of the writ petition. This is stated so by way of short reply. As per respondent No. 2, the writ petition is pre-mature as the objections filed by the petitioners against the notice issued for revising the house tax for the year 2010-11 is still pending before the House Tax Sub Committee constituted by the answering respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners would have a remedy of filing appeal under Section 146 of the Act only after the assessment order is passed. Reference is made to the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, which provides that no objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any manner or by any other authority then is provided under the Act. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable on this count.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main submission made by Sh. N.K. Suneja, counsel for the petitioners, appearing in number of petitions is regarding the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation to levy the house tax. As per the counsel, the property has not been transferred to the Municipal Corporation and, thus, the Corporation would have no right or jurisdiction to levy the house tax. In fact, the counsel has made reference to an order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11208 of 2009, which was initially dismissed by the Division Bench on 29.7.2009. Subsequently, however, the petitioner filed an application for review and the order dismissing the petition was reviewed. The review primarily was on the basis of the documents, which the petitioner had produced to show that the property had not been transferred to the Municipal Corporation. Besides this, the counsel for the petitioner has also raised objection in regard to the manner in which the house tax has been determined. The counsel would plead that there has to be some basis for this. As per the counsel, it has to be on the basis of fair rent which is first required to be determined and then the house tax may be so levied.;