- (1.) Municipal Committee, Batala, passed an order on Feb. 17, 1986 by which the annual rental value of Unit No. B-VIII-2 at Dera Baba Nanak Road was assessed as Rs. 3,12,876.00 for the year 1985-86. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. It was accepted, the revision petition field by the Municipal Committee before the Govt. having been dismissed vide order dated August 27, 1990 it has come to this court in the present writ petition. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a notice dated November 8, 1985 (Annexure P-1) had been given by the Committee to respondent No. 3. In this notice, the details of the property, the names of the tenants and the rent per month were specifically indicated. The assessee had filed the reply and had not even remotely suggested that the notice was not valid. Accordingly, the Committee had passed the order of assessment dated February 17, 1986. Its action has been reversed by the respondents on two grounds, namely; that the notice was defective and the assessment finalised on February 14, 1986, could be applicable for the next financial year. Mr. Hemant Gupta submits that the notice was valid and the decision on the first issue by the Appellant and Revisional authorities is untenable. He, however, accepts that so far as the finding in respect of the premises in occupation of the Bank is concerned, the assessment can be effective from April 1, 1986 only and that there can be no valid objection thereto. Mr. Battas on the other hand controverts the submission of Mr. Gupta even on the first point.
(2.) I have perused the notice (copy-Annexure P-1) issued to respondent No. 3 under Section 67 of the Municipal Act, 1911. It shows that the property in question bears one municipal number. It is registered as Unit No. VIII-2. It is in occupation of a number of tenants. It has shops, godowns and offices located therein. Complete particulars in respect of the nature of the property, name of the tenants and the amount of rent have been duly given. There is no infirmity in the notice whatsoever. Mr. Battas has not been able to point out any defect in this notice. Still further, no objection to the validity of this notice was ever taken by the respondent. In any event, even if separate notices were issued, it would have only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It would not have served any useful purpose at all. It would not have changed the situation in any manner. In fact, no prejudice, whatsoever, is shown to have been caused to the assessee, respondent No. 3.
(3.) In this view of the matter, the finding recorded regarding the validity of the notice cannot be sustained.;