|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Punjab Acts |
Appellant is the defeated candidate - His nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer because his parentage on nomination papers differed from the corrected one in voter list –Appellants plea was rejected by Returning Officer as also by the DC – When a challenge was laid by writ petition, the case was remitted to prescribed Authority for decision – {described authority also rejected the plea-high Court, in appeal Held—Prescribed authority has fallen into error in rejecting the election petition-Electoral roll was clandestinely got corrected by someone at the back of the petitioner—When such a correction is to be made, a petition is to be submitted by the person to whom that entry relates (Rule 8 (G) (4) (B)—Appellant never came to know of this correction—Procedure adopted by the Returning Officer cannot be granted judicial recognisition – Election of respondent No. 3 is declared void—Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1952 – Rule 53, Arun Kumar V. The Comm. Prescribed Authority, Ludhiana: 1997 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter (P & H) 549
S. 3 (1) – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976—S. 93—Haryana Municipal Act, 1978 – S. 2 (a) (i) (ii) – Levy of house tax has been challenged – Two sets of appeals refer to the self occupied properties located in the States of Punjab and Haryana – For assessment – Annual rental value – Applicability of the rent restriction laws in the aid of that exercise – As for Punjab there is no non-obstante clause in S.3 of Municipal Act, 1911 or S. 93 of Corporation Act, 1976 – Building in self occupation would be assessable to taxes at the gross annual rent for which it may be let for use – This has to be fixed on the basis of standard rent determinable under the Punjab Rent Act – As for Haryana appeals Section 2 of Municipal Act begins with non-obstante clause – Assistance of the Rent Act is thus barred – Appeals relating to properties situated in Punjab are allowed and in respect of those situated in Haryana are dismissed, 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 480
Sections 3 (1) (a) (b) and (c) – Annual value of building – Notice of enhanced assessment of property tax – Challenged by petitioners as (i) Area hitherto charged for is 4 Kanals and the assessment now is for 7 Kanals and 3 marlas – (ii) Self occupied building is to be assessed as per Section 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act and not as per Section 3 (1) (c) as has been done – Held – (i) Earlier assessment was based as if the area under neath was 4 kanals whereas actual area is 7 kanals 3 marlas – (ii) Self occupied building is to be assessed as per Section 3 (1) (c) as has been done – Held – (i) Earlier assessment was based as if the area under neath was 4 kanals whereas actual area is 7 kanals 3 marlas – Since it was a mistake on the face of it. Committee was justified in issuing the notice – (ii) – Common case of the parties property is in self occupation – Gross annual rent expected of the building is to be basis of assessment – Authorities were supposed to assess the annual value of the building in question according to Section 3 (1) (c) – Illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities in passing impugned order – Matter remitted back to Corporation for fresh assessment according to law – Authorities would be at liberty to redetermine the area of the property, R.B. Mayor v. The Municipal Corp. of Jalandhar: 1997 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter (P & H) 145
S.3 (1) (C) – Since the property is situated in the town of Patiala, in the State of Punjab, it is governed by the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act – Annual rental value of the property, thus governed by Rent Control Law, has to be determined on the basis of fair rent OR standard rent – Assessment order dated 29.3.1994 is not sustainable. 1998 (3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 98
Ss. 3 (i), 86 and 84 – Jurisdiction – Assessment – Valuation – S. 3 (1) defines the annual value of the property for purposes of the Act – S, 86 by a strong implication ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine and decide the questions of valuation, assessment of the tax or liability of a persons to be assessed or taxed – Alternative remedy to the aggrieved party has been provided as an appeal to the appropriate authority defined in the Act – Not by a Civil suit – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 9, Roshan Lal v. Municipal Committee, Nabha : 1997 (3) All India Laws Reporter (Pb, & Hry.) 478
S.s 16 (1) (a) – Proviso – Removed from membership of Municipal Council – Show cause was issued alongwith chargesheet – Allegations contrived – Reply filed – Petitioner contends his reply to the show cause notice and connecting evidenc ehas not been looked into – Court found that contention was based on facts and evidence adduced – Matter needs to be remanded to concerned authority to be reconsidered and decided – Such reconsideration is to be done by an authority other than the one which decided the case earlier. 1998 (2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 568
Sections 61 (1) (a) and 3 (11) – Proviso to Section 61 (1) (a) provides for tax payable by the tenant in case the land/building is occupied by the tenant – Sub section (11) of Section 3 defines the word “OWNER” to include the person who can receive the rents – “Owner” has a wide field to cover – Person in possession is also covered – Lessee is no exception – Dictionary meaning includes a person who has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases – Club has raised construction on the leased land and continue to do so – Lease renewed upto 2010 A.D. – Clearly petitioner is the “Owner” of the land/building within the meaning of section 61 (1) (a) read with Section 3 (ii) of the 1911 Punjab Municipal Act – Petitioner is liable to pay the House tax as demand raised; 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (DELHI) 280
Ss. 62A, 71 (1) – Under S. 71 (1) of the Act President exempted raw cotton and cottonseed from the payment of octroi and on the same day under S. 62A directed the Municipalities to impose the Urban Development Cess on these items – Municipalities noted that the cess has been levied by the Government and started collecting the same – Such levy and collection was challenged by writ petitions in High Court – Refund of cess collected with interest was ordered – hence this appeal by State – Municipality did not issue and orders under S. 62 A (1) and started collecting the cess – Nor did the Government itself notify the imposition of tax (CESS) which could have acted as a resolution passed by the Municipality – There was no imposition of cess – Recovery of cess was without the authority of law – View taken by High Court stands confirmed, 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (S.C.) 1
S. 63 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – S. 93 – East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – House Tax – Rateable value means the value of any land or building for the purpose of assessment to property taxes – Rent received from a tenant is not the measure for determination of annual rateable value – While fixing annual value, test to be applied is what rent could the premises lawfully fetch – Fair Rent – Rent Act applicable, exercise is ot be done under those provisions. 1998 (3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 53
Ss. 65,66,67 and 68 – Notice is required to be issued to the affected person(s) before revising assessment list – Only thereafter the assessment done would be fair – Tax so assessed shall be deemed to the tax for the year commencing on the first day of April of the following year – Section 67 allowed the Municipality to amend the assessment list but before the commencement of the year and not in the middle of it – Municipality is not empowered to reopen and reassess the completed cases. 1998(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 98
S.s 66-68 – Housetax – Imposition of House tax challenged as not having been imposed after fixing annual rental value of property – held – From the perusal of record, it cannot be said that annual rental value of the property has been fixed before assessing and imposing House tax – Mater remanded to Municipality to proceed in accordance with the law, Central Ware-Housing Corp., Chd. V. State of Punjab : 1997 (1) All India Land Laws Reporter (P & H) 395
Section 67 – Deputy Commissioner set aside the orders of the Municipality by which it enhanced the annual rental value of a theatre – Municipal Committee has filed this appeal – Held – Under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Annual rental value can be revised only if an error or mistake or that the assessment was made by fraudulent means – No such circumstances adverted to in the order – NO ground to warrant interference in the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 212
Section 67 AND 68 – Both Section pertainto assessment of the property – Sectioned 67 provides for a notice of the property provides for a – Notice if the property has been erroneously valued or assessed – Under Section 68A Amendment could be made if the valued or assessed – Under Section 68 – A amendment could be made if the erroneous assessment has been made though fraud accident or mistake – Assessee has to be given an opportunity of being heard- Such enquiry as deemed fit have too be made for the same – Provisions Crystalise the matter – To amend the list under Section 67, one month’s notice was required to be give – Under Section 68A also not only proper notice but an opportunity of being heard was required too be give – Held – Notice under Section 67 is vague and defective – Petition allowed – Impugned assessment order passed by assessing authority and order assessed by appellate authority is quashed and set aside – Petitioner to appear before assessing authority, who shall provide the petitioners with such information forming basis of assessment – Assessment ordered afresh in accordance with law, Kranti Arora v. NDMC & Ors. : 1997 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter (DELHI) 320
Ss. 76 to 78 and 61 – Octroi – Furnance oil used in manufacture of urea supplied by I.O.C. at rates much lower than to the other consumers – Municipal Committee had been charging octroi on the actual price paid – E.O. issued a notice for recovery of about Rs. 66 lacs on account of the difference in two prices, and octori charged on lesser price – Hence this appeal – There is no controversy between the parties that committee had been charging octroi on concessional rates as paid – Respondents do not say that it was a case of under invicing – No attempt has been made to defraud the committee by not disclosing the true price – Held – Order passed by respondent 2 suffers from error of law apparent on the face of it – Reserves to be quashed – Punjab Municipal Account Code, Chapter V – Rule 17 (3); National Fertilizer Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda : 1947 (4) All India Land Laws Reporter (Pb. & Hry.) 48
Section 84 – 3 (i) b – House tax – Building owned and occupied by the L.I.C. was assessed for tax at Rs. 25,562 – Objections rejected by Municipal Committee – Appellate Court rejected the points raised simply by saying order passed by Assessing Authority is a detailed one – Appellate authority has not discussed various objections as examined by assessing authority – Held – It was the duty of the appellate authority to independently examine the oissues raised by the petitioner and decide the same by assigning good and suffricient reasons – Every quasi judicial authority must pass speaking order – Orders deserved to be quashed on grounds of violation of natural justice – Appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh; Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Municipal Committee, FZR : 1997 (2) All India Land Laws Reporter (P & H) 390
Ss.84 & 85 – An appeal against the assessment or order pertaining thereto is maintainable within 30 days but when an order is found to be wholly without jurisdiction and illegal (as is the order dated 23.3.1994) the petitioner cannot be said invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 of the Constituion without sufficient reasons. 1998 (3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 98
Ss.84 & 85 – An appeal against the assessment or order pertaining thereto is maintainable within 30 days but when an order is found to be wholly without jurisdiction and illegal (as is the order dated 29.3.1994) the peititoner cannot be said invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution without sufficient reasons. 1998 (3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 98
Ss. 86, 84 and 61 – Although the Special Act prohibits the Civil Court to entertain suit regarding assessment of tax etc. – Jurisdiction is conferred upon the competent authority – But Civil Court continued to have the power and jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit if the authority under the special Act has acted with a material irregularity or illegality – Capability of the Legislative cannot be questioned to bar jurisdiction of Civil Court – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 9; Roshan Lal v. Municipal Committee, Nabha : 1997 (3) All India Land Laws Reporter (Pb. & Hry.) 478
S. 121 (1) – Offensive and dangerous trade – Petitioners directed to pay license fee and take a license – Petitioners are dealers in allopathic medicines and drugs – None of these are covered by S. 121 (1) of the Act – As held in 1984 (1) 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 91, Municipal Committee had no authority to prescribe licence fee on the business of Chemists and druggists under S. 121 of the Act: 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 304
S. 121 (1) – Licensing of trades – Dangerous and Offensive Trades – Brought on the list by Dy. Director Local Bodies – Petitioner convicted for not taking out a licence to follow the trade – When challenged, Municipality defended by saying that noise created by cutting pipes in sanitary trade would cause noise pollution – Defence is that such occasions of cutting are expected to be a few – Noise is to a limited volume and not so grievous as to cause nuisance to carry out the trade is struck down; 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 103
Ss. 154 and 168 – Disposal of dead animals – When a public auction was held for disposal of carcass of dead animals and was confirmed by the State Government, petitioners challenged the auction as illegal and sought it to be quashed – Contention was the Municipal Committee did not become the owner of the carcass of the dead animal which is owned by them – Ld. Single Judge accepted the cont3ention, and held that owner of the carcass of the dead animal has a right to dispose of a carcass as per provisions and manner provided in the Municipal Act – But where the owner of the dead animal abandons the carcass or requests the Municipality to arrange for is disposal, such rights had to be auctioned – Division Bench did not find any infirmity in law or in facts of the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge. 1998 (2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P & H) 369
Section 195 – Petitioners, occupants of unauthorisedly built/erected upper four floors of “White House” pray for quashing of the demolition orders of the four floors – Having failed in lower courts, have filed this L.P.A. – Contention is such demolition orders were illegal in the absence of any show cause notice of these “owners” – When owner/builder had been served with requisite notices, appellants, were not entitled to any further notice – They would at best be entitled to an appeal which they are pursuing – Demolition order, in the absence of any reasons are illegal is further contended – Submission is devoid of substance as the order succinctly and precisely sets out the extent of unauthorized construction and recited the show cause notice issued to bu9ilder – Held – Construction of additional floors is unauthorized and not compoundable – Consideration of public interest and larger interest of society in not permitting this edifice of unauthorized construction to remain, far outweigh the financial hardships and inconvenience that may be caused to the affluent purchasers of these flats – Appeals are dismissed ; 1998 (1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (DELHI) 265
Section 202 – Bye laws for collection of Octroi – Octroi limits have to be fixed or extended – Such Bye laws finalized, are to be published by a notification – Are also open to inspection as well as sale – When an Advocate wanted to inspect the bye laws also when revenue authorities confirmed no extension of octroi limits, Municipal authorities just could not show them – Bye laws have not been made, notified – Municipal Committee has not extended the octroi limits – Collection of octroi without that was illegal and without authority of law; Maghan Packers P Ltd. v. State of Punjab: 1997 (2) All India land laws reporter (P & H) 452
LIIofIndia:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.liiofindia.org/in/legis/pb/act/ialclopma1911anxo1911569