N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6591 and 6592 of 1993 as questions of fact and law in both the writ petitions are identical. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 6592 of 1993.
(2.) PETITIONER sought issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 15. 4. 93, Annexure P-1, issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal committee, Ahmedgarh, vide which the petitioner was directed to pay octroi on the incoming goods/material as the factory of the petitioner now comes within the extended municipal limits of Ahmedgarh, on the ground that the same is illegal and without jurisdiction as neither the preliminary notification nor the final notification relate to the revenue estate of village Akbarpura wherein the factory of the petitioner is situate. Elaborating, the petitioner has averred that whole of the revenue estate of village Akbarpura falls outside the Municipal limit of Ahmedgarh. Even the preliminary notification dated 26. 6. 89 issued Under Section 5 (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act did not make mention of village Akbarpura. A bare perusal of the notification dated 26. 6. 89 clearly reveals that the same relates to the land situate in villages Jagera and Jandiali Khurd @ Malikpura. It has further been stated that the petitioner apprehending that a new notification will be issued extending the municipal limits of Ahmedgarh so as to include the revenue estate of village Akbarpura at some later stage, filed a caveat on 23. 9. 89, Annexure P-5, that in case the municipal limits of Ahmedgarh is to be extended thereby including the revenue estate of village Akbarpura the same is likely to affect the petitioner financially and so craved that the petitioner be heard before finalising the notification Under Section 5 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act. Pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the court, the respondents have put in appearance and filed written statement, Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a joint written statement whereas respondent No. 4 Municipal Committee has filed separate written statement. Preliminary objections as well as pleas taken in both the written statements are almost identical. Objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition, it has been stated-that the extension of the municipal limits is in exercise of a function which partakes the character of sovereign functions and it was not incumbent upon the respondents to hear the petitioner before extending the municipal limits. As regards the notification, it was staled that the same was published in accordance with law in the area in question and that the petitioner was aware of the notification. This fact is otherwise proved as the petitioner had filed objections and lodged a caveat petition as. per Annexure P-5. On merits, it was stated that the description of boundaries of the area which was included vide preliminary notification as well as final notification vide Annexure P-2 and P-7 respectively, there is no manner of doubt that the area of the petitioner's mill falls within the extended municipal limits of Ahmedgarh. Replying to the averments of the petitioner that the name of village Akbarpura does not find mention in the notification, it was submitted that the notification states the starting point i. e. north eastern corner of Khasra No. 229 of village Jagera and then boundary proceeds by giving the description of the outer limits. The notification goes on to indicate that at Khasra No. 525. the direction of the boundaries is towards the western of Khasra No. 523 and in this manner the boundaries so reach upto point of khasra No. 598. Once again it is given that the boundaries arc to proceed along with khasra No. 599 and thereafter it makes mention of khasra No. 42, 41, 40, 33, 32 and 28. If a line is drawn as per khasra No. mentioned in the notification connecting the various numbers, the area under the factory premises, though situate in village Akbarpura, comes within its boundary. This way the assertion of the petitioner that village Akbarpura is not included, as per notification Annexures P-2 and P-7, is absolutely incorrect. Replying to the assertion of the petitioner that it was mandatory requirement of Section 5 (5) of the Punjab Municipal Act to hear the objections of the inhabitants of the Sahha area, it was stated that such a plea is not available to the petitioner as Gram Panchayat has not come forward to contest the notification Annexure P-7.
(3.) SINCE the matter involved financial implications, it was thought appropriate to hear the parties at the motion stage and decide the same without any further delay.;