M.C. Sangrur v. Ranbir Singh & Other

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Municipal Comm Ranbir Singh an

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre appellant agains District Judge, S by the trial Cour Brief Facts

2.

Bri claimed owners within the Mun property was pa collecting rent fr

3.

Committee, San THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

mittee, Sangrur

VERSUS nd Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for t -.-

ANNU, J. esent regular second appeal h st the judgment and decree dated Sangrur, whereby the judgment a rt, was set aside. iefly stated, the plaintiffs, Ranbi s of Municipal Property Unit N nicipal Limits of Sangrur. Afte artitioned among the plaintiffs, from four shops forming part of t e grievance of the plaintiffs is th ngrur, vide orders dated 19.12.1

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-910-1996 (O&M) served on:-10.12.2025 onounced on:- 11.12.2025 ploaded on:-11.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellant. has been filed by the defenda d 15.11.1995 passed by the learn and decree dated 30.04.1994 pas ir Singh and his co-plaintiff, are No. B-5/424, situated in Prem B er the death of Baldev Singh, who have been in occupation the said property. hat the Executive Officer, Munici 1989 and 19.12.1991, wrongly

- ant-ned ssed asti and ipal

illegally assess assessment wa prescribed unde Restriction Act,

4.

It is affording any p the property wa asserted that a served, but no r by the plaintiff assessment ord examining the fa

5.

competent to lev and according t for such levy. assessment orde with a conseque recovering the a

6.

In t it was pleaded t of Baldev Singh the records is it ed the rental value/house tax as made jointly, without foll er the Punjab Municipal Act, 1 and the rules governing assessm s their case that the Committee p roper opportunity of hearing an as more than 40 years old at the notice under Section 49 of th reply was furnished by the Com fs before the Deputy Commiss der dated 19.12.1989, was al facts. e plaintiffs alleged that the vy house tax, as the property is o them, Prem Basti was not a fu The plaintiffs thus sought ers were illegal, void, arbitrary, ential relief of permanent injunct assessed tax. the written statement filed by th that the property in question, Un h son of Madan Singh, as per the shown that, after the death of B

x of the property, and that su lowing the mandatory proced 1911, the East Punjab Urban R ment of house tax. passed the impugned orders with nd without considering the fact t e time of assessment. They furt he Municipal Committee Act w mmittee. An earlier appeal prefer sioner, Sangrur, against the ini so dismissed without adequat Municipal Committee was situated in the area of Prem Ba fully served area, hence not eligi a declaration that the impugn and not binding upon them, alo tion restraining the Committee fr e defendant–Municipal Committ nit No. B-5/424, stands in the na e Municipal records, and nowhere Baldev Singh, Ranbir Singh beca

- uch dure Rent hout that ther was rred itial tely not asti, ible ned ong rom tee, ame e in

the owner of th standi to challen

7.

been made stric under the Punj committed by th orders dated 19 authority. It was that the Civil assessment of authorities unde

8.

It w finalised after Committee reco Ex.D3, Ex.D4, per the Municip property compri According to th the assessed ren

9.

had occurred an remedy of appe the civil suit w plaintiffs had no he said property. It was asserte nge the assessment orders. e defendants further contended th ctly in accordance with law an ab Municipal Act, 1911. They he Committee in finalising the r

9.12.1989 and 19.12.1991 wer s also claimed that the Committ Court has no jurisdiction to house tax falls within the ex er the Municipal Act. was additionally pleaded that issuing a notice, Ex.D1, on onsidered the matter on various d Ex. D5, Ex.D6 and Ex. D7. Th pal record, Baldev Singh was ised four shops and a residentia he Committee, the shops were si ntal value. e Committee denied that any i nd contended that the plaintiff al before the Deputy Commissio was not maintainable. The de ot come to the court with clean h

ed that the plaintiffs had no lo hat the assessment of house tax h nd as per the procedure prescrib y submitted that no illegality w ental value of the property, and re duly passed by the compet tee had taken up the legal object o entertain such matters beca xclusive domain of the statut the earlier assessment was d n 22.08.1980, and thereafter dates, passing decisions reflected he defendants also asserted that the recorded owner, and that al unit, all assessable for house t ituated on the main road, justify illegality or procedural irregula f had already availed the statut oner, which was dismissed. Hen fendants further pleaded that hands.

- ocus had bed was tent tion ause tory duly d in , as tax. ying arity tory nce,

Findings of the

10.

by the Municipa of the Punjab statutory remed assessment. Ho challenge to an dismissed the su procedural viola would justify int Findings of the

11.

the question of the suit is not b proving that the determining the newly built and material. The co notices were se orders.

12.

It a show on what b the plaintiffs we led evidence sho e trial Court e Trial Court concluded that the al Committee was validly made Municipal Act, and that the p dy of appeal before the Deputy olding that the Civil Court ha assessment order passed under uit, observing that the plaintiffs h ation, or excess of authority o terference by a Civil Court. e lower Appellate Court e Lower Appellate Court reverse jurisdiction and held that the ju arred. The appellate court held e Municipal Committee had not e rental value, as the Committee d the shops to be located on a ourt further found that the Com erved on the plaintiffs before also held that the Committee f basis the rental value had been fi ere duly considered. The appellat owing that the property was mor

assessment of house tax carried e in accordance with the provisi plaintiffs had already availed y Commissioner, who upheld ad no jurisdiction to entertain the Municipal Act, the Trial Co had failed to establish any illegal on the part of the Committee t ed the finding of the Trial Court urisdiction of the Civil Court to that the plaintiffs had succeeded acted in accordance with law wh e considered the construction to main road without any support mmittee failed to prove that pro passing the impugned assessm failed to produce any evidence ixed or that the earlier objections te court noted that the plaintiffs h re than 40 years old and situated

- out ions n a lity, that t on try d in hile o be ting oper ment e to s of had

an undeveloped rebut these fact orders were arb procedure presc

13.

On aside the judgm the plaintiffs by as illegal, invali

14.

Ag defendant-Muni appeal. Submissions of

15.

Lea decree passed b contended that t on record and h the appellant. C provisions of Se the jurisdiction According to hi procedure presc Findings of this

16.

Aft the Punjab Mun d area lacking basic amenities. ts. The appellate court, therefo bitrary, not based on any cog ribed by law. n these findings, the Lower Appe ment and decree of the Trial Cour y declaring the assessment order d, and not binding on the plainti grieved by the judgment of icipal Committee, Sangrur has f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellan by the learned lower appellate C the lower appellate Court failed as misinterpreted as well as mis Counsel further argues that th ections 84 and 86 of the Punjab of the Civil Court in matters im, such disputes can be adjudi ribed under the Punjab Municipa s Court ter considering the pleadings, ev nicipal Act, 1911, it is evident tha

The Municipal Committee did ore, concluded that the assessm ent material, and violative of ellate Court allowed the appeal, rt, and decreed the suit in favour rs dated 19.12.1989 and 19.12.19 ffs. the lower appellate Court, filed the present regular seco lant. nt submits that the judgment Court suffers from illegality. I to properly appreciate the evide construed the material produced he appellate Court overlooked b Municipal Act, which clearly pertaining to municipal taxati icated only in accordance with al Act. vidence, and the statutory scheme at the jurisdiction of the Civil Co

- not ment set r of ond and It is nce d by bar ion.

is barred in mat 84 and 86 of th assessment, incl the plaintiff ha Munshi Ram v authoritatively provides a spec impliedly barred in the manner pr raised by the pl assessment of h Municipal Com therefore rightly and no ground i

17.

Civil Court is appellate Court exclusively to t stands complete Municipal Act, of the Civil Co against assessm The Hon'ble Su that once a sta tters relating to assessment or re e Act expressly provide a comp luding a statutory appeal before as admittedly already availed. vs. Municipal Committee, Chh held that where a revenue st cific remedy in a particular foru d, and grievances relating to ass rescribed under the Act. Applyin aintiff pertains solely to the lega house tax, which squarely falls w mmittee and the appellate author y held that the civil suit is not m s made out to take a contrary vie e finding of the lower appellate not barred is patently erroneo failed to appreciate that the con the assessment, reassessment an ely covered by the special mac 1911. Sections 84 and 86 of the ourt by necessary implication, ent must be adjudicated only thr upreme Court in Munshi Ram's c atute creates a special right an

e-assessment of house tax. Secti plete mechanism for challenging e the Deputy Commissioner, wh The Hon'ble Supreme Court heharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250, tatute creates a special right um, the civil court's jurisdiction sessment must be adjudicated o ng this settled principle, the disp ality, correctness, and procedure within the exclusive domain of rity under the Act. The trial Co maintainable for want of jurisdicti ew. e Court that the jurisdiction of ous and cannot be sustained. T ntroversy in the present case rela nd levy of house tax, a field wh chinery provided under the Pun e Act expressly oust the jurisdict as they mandate that grievan rough the statutory appellate foru case (supra), has categorically h nd provides a special remedy,

- ons g an hich t in has and n is only pute e of ion, ates hich njab tion nces um.

jurisdiction of overlooked this existed. Therefo Court is unsusta Conclusion

18.

For that the learned had jurisdiction judgment of th jurisdiction wer Municipal Act a

19.

Con cannot be sustai Court are restore

20.

Pen

December 11, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh the Civil Court is impliedly b binding principle and erroneous ore, its conclusion that the suit ainable in law. r the reasons recorded above, th Lower Appellate Court erred in to entertain the present suit and he Trial Court. The findings of e fully justified in view of the st and the binding precedents gover nsequently, the judgment and de ined and are hereby set aside. Th ed. As a result, the present Regu nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

barred. The lower appellate Co sly assumed jurisdiction where n was maintainable before the C his Court is of the considered v n law in holding that the Civil Co d in setting aside the well-reason f the Trial Court on the issue tatutory bar contained in the Pun rning the field. ecree of the Lower Appellate Co he judgment and decree of the T ular Second Appeal is allowed stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- one Civil iew ned e of njab