Punjab-Haryana High CourtMunicipal Committee vs Shamsher Singh on 28 April, 2004Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR421Author:Ashutosh MohuntaBench:Ashutosh MohuntaJUDGMENT
 

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.1.  This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.2.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the suit filed by Shankar Singh was decreed and it was held that the Municipal Committee cannot recover arrears of House Tax from the plaintiff on the ground that the assessment was not in accordance with law and further that he was not the owner of the house in dispute.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Shankar Singh respondent-plaintiff filed a
suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee, Dhuri, from realising
the House Tax imposed upon House No. 234 and 245 situated in Mandi Dhuri. It was
averred that the notices issued by the Municipal Committee, Dhuri, were wholly illegal,
inasmuch as Shankar Singh was not the owner of the house in dispute. Thus, the pro-
ceedings are also wholly illegal and against the law.3. The averments made by the plaintiff were controverted by the Municipal Commit-
tee. It was contended that the plaintiff Shankar Singh was the Karta of the H.U.F. and as
such the Municipal Committee was within its jurisdiction to realise the House Tax from
the plaintiff. It was further contended that the Municipal Committee could not be sued
without giving notice underSection 49of the Punjab Municipal Act, the plaintiff could
have filed an appeal against the orders passed by the Municipal Committee.4. The Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Dhuri, vide judgment dated 29.7.1982 held that the or
der imposing tax upon the plaintiff was placed without application of mind and without
looking to the correct position of the documents. However, the trial Court dismissed the
suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide
the case as the plaintiff should have availed of the remedies available to him under thePunjab Municipal Act.5. The plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court
and the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 24.2.1984
set aside the judgment of the trial court and held that the imposition of the tax on the
plaintiff was wholly illegal and he was not the owner of the house in dispute. The lower
Appellate Court further held that the Civil Court did have the jurisdiction to entertain
the suit because in such like cases the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not be
barred. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plain-
tiff placed reliance on M.C. Amritsar v. Bala Mal Ishar Dass,1 1982 Simla Law Journal
134, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It is,
thus, the Municipal Committee, Dhuri, has filed the present appeal.6. One thing that stands out from a perusal of the judgments passed by both the
Courts below is that the plaintiff-respondent was not the owner of House Nos. 234 and
245 situated in Mandi Dhuri and, therefore, no demand for realisation of House Tax
could have been made against him with regard to these houses. There is no documents
on the record to show that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the suit property.
Moreover, a perusal of M.C. Amritsar v. Bala Mai Ishar Dass,1 1982 Simla Law Journal
134, as well as M.C. Montgomery v. Master Sant Singh,2 A.I.R.  1940 Lahore 377,
shows that it was held therein that "since the tax was payable by the owners and not by
the hirer, the imposition of the tax on the hirer is illegal and ultra vires of the powers of
the Municipal Committee." In the present case also the tax has been imposed not on the
owner of the house, therefore, on the same analogy the action of the Municipal Commit-
tee would be wholly illegal and beyond its jurisdiction and can be challenged before the
Civil Court. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the judgment dated 24.2.1984 passed by
the Additional District Judge, Sangrur.7. Resultantly, there is not merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There
shall, however, be no order as to costs.