D.S. Mehta And Ors. vs N.D.M.C. And Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 148 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 5/11/1993 whereby the suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-

 (2) The petitioners are the owners of property No. 35, Babar Road, New Delhi.According to the petitioners, the property was being assessed for the purpose of house tax and they were paying tax at the rate of Rs. 8104.00 per annum from the year 1981 to Assessment year 1989-1990. On 23/02/1990 the petitioners received a notice from Assistant Collector, Palika Kendra, Ndmc calling upon their tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,946.00 as arrears of house tax up to the period ending 31/03/1990. It is claimed that on receipt of the notice, the petitioners requested the Secretary, Ndmc to furnish the details of the arrears, but they failed to receive any response from it. Thereupon the petitioners filed the present suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi. The summons in the suit were issued to the respondents. New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Collector. Pursuant thereto Ndmc, first respondent, filed its written statement. In the written statement, it was stated, inter alia, that the petitioners were assessed to house tax @ Rs. 8100.00 up to the year 1987-88.Subsequently, the tax was raised from Rs. 8100.00 to Rs. 23,652.00. The details of the demands and the tax paid as given in the written statement are as under:     ______________________________________________________________________ Year Demand Payment received Balance ______________________________________________________________________ 85-86 Rs.8390.00 Rs. 8100.00 Rs. 297.00 Rs. 4.55.P.F.86-87 Rs.8397.00 Nil Rs. 8397.0087-88 Rs.8397.00 Nil Rs. 8397.00 9.10 + Rs. 15.70 P.F.88-89 Rs.23949.00 Rs. 8700.0089-89 Rs.2349.00 Rs. 8406.70 Rs. 6553.0090-91 Rs.23949.00 Rs. 8406.00 Rs. 4000.00 Rs. 4000.00 Rs. 6000.00 Rs. 25781.30 ____________ Rs. 42901.65 ____________    

 (3) In the written statement a preliminary objection was also raised that the suit was barred under Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, (for short 'the Act).Therefore, the Trial Court raised the following preliminary issue:-    "WHETHER this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?"  

 (4) On 5/11/1993 .the Trial Court decided the preliminary issue and held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is this order of the Trial Court against which the petitioners have come up in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.  

 (5) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the Trial Court wrongly decided the issue inasmuch as the petitioners had not comp up against any demand raised by the respondents but they had merely received a notice calling upon them to deposit the arrears andtherefore, they could not have taken recourse to the remedies provided under the Act.   

 (6) I have considered the submission of learned Counsel and I find that the same are devoid of any force. Learned Counsel for the petitioners was specifically asked to reconcile the payments which are alleged to have been made by his clients with the details given in the written statement. Learned Counsel produced the receipts. All the receipts were tallied with the details given in the written statement and it was found that credit had been given by the respondents in respect of the amounts which had. been shown to have been deposited by the petitioners with the respondent as per the receipts. Therefore, the case of the petitioners that they had made the entire payment on account of levy of property tax is notcorrect. The demands as detailed in the written statement were not complied with nor any proceedings were taken under the Act to challenge the property tax assessment. Punjab Municipal Act in; so far property tax matters are concerned is a complete Code and detailed, procedure is given in regard to the assessment of the property tax and the manner in which the assessment could be challenged. In Sobha Singh and Songs (P) Ltd. V, .New Delhi Municipal Committee, , this Court after review of Several judgments of the .Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the challenge to .the demand of property tax can only be made in accordance with the provisions of , Act and filing of a Civil Suit will not be a proper remedy for challenging the demand. The Supreme Court in co-observed as follows:    23.WITHthe increase in the number of taxing statutes; welfare legislations and enactments to protect a class of citizens, a trend can be noticed that most of such legislations confer decision making powers on various authorities and they seek to limit or exclude Court's power to review those decisions.The result is that the power of the Court under Section 9 of the Code is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of liabilities created or rights conferred. This Court in the judgments referred to above has upheld the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court one examination of two questions - (1) Whether the right or liability in respect whereof grievance has been made, had been created under an enactment and it did not relate toa pre-existing common law right? (2) Whether the machinery provided for redressal of the grievance in respect of infringement of such right or imposition of a liability under such enactment, was adequate andcomplete". The ouster of this jurisdiction of the Court was upheld on the finding that the rights or liabilities in question had been created by the Act in question and remedy provided therein was adequate."  

 (7) Having regard to the above discussion, it this petition is dismissed.