Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Jangi Lal Jain & Anr. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3537-58 and 3540 of 1979
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 3958/77, 7218/76, 2538, 3880/77, 319, 1046, 1577 and 4733 of 1978)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 3958/77, 7218/76, 2538, 3880/77, 319, 1046, 1577 and 4733 of 1978)
Petitioner: Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh
Respondent: Jangi Lal Jain & Anr. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3537-58 and 3540 of 1979
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 3958/77, 7218/76, 2538, 3880/77, 319, 1046, 1577 and 4733 of 1978)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 3958/77, 7218/76, 2538, 3880/77, 319, 1046, 1577 and 4733 of 1978)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 08, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. K. Madhaya Reddy, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Kanwaljit Kochar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Senior Advocate (A.C.), Mr. Ravindra Bana, Advocate (NP), Mr. G.K. Bansal, Advocate with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
MUNICIPAL LAW
Property Tax – Validity of power to levy – Held Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 displaces effect of 1952 Act as amended in 1957 – Considering that Municipal Corporation has yet to be constituted and Administrator has been denuded of power to levy property tax, this is not a proper case to go into the question – Dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated 19.2.1979 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the delegation of power to levy property tax in favour of the Chief Administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration was in excess of legislative power. The operation of Schedule II of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, (27 of 1952), as amended by Punjab Act 37 of 1957, offenda the provisions of the Constitution. On the facts of this case, we think that it is not necessary to decide the question on account of diverse reasons. There is some force in the contention of Shri Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. But, prior to 1994 Amendment under Section 62 read with Sections 61 and 68 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the assessment of the property tax shall be annual basis and revisable every year. Now, it is valid for five years and amount for quinquinial. In this case, since it was struck down, revision was not effected. Moreover, even the limitation for recovery of the amount due also is not barred by limitation except for six months. That apart, the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 (45 of 1994) which has come into force with effect from May 24, 1994, displaces the effect of Act 27 of 1952 as amended by Act 37 of 1957. The Municipal Corporation, as enjoined under Section 4 of 1994 Act has yet to be constituted. After coming into force of the 1994 Act, the Chief Administrator has been denuded of the power to levy property tax. In view of these subsequent changes, it is unnecessary, rather academic, to decide the question decided by the High Court in the impugned order. Moreover, the connected appeals C.A. Nos. 3536, 3539, 3541-43/79 filed against the main judgment were dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on May 10, 1995 and became final. Under these circumstances, we think that these are not proper cases to go into the question.
2. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated 19.2.1979 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the delegation of power to levy property tax in favour of the Chief Administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration was in excess of legislative power. The operation of Schedule II of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, (27 of 1952), as amended by Punjab Act 37 of 1957, offenda the provisions of the Constitution. On the facts of this case, we think that it is not necessary to decide the question on account of diverse reasons. There is some force in the contention of Shri Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. But, prior to 1994 Amendment under Section 62 read with Sections 61 and 68 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the assessment of the property tax shall be annual basis and revisable every year. Now, it is valid for five years and amount for quinquinial. In this case, since it was struck down, revision was not effected. Moreover, even the limitation for recovery of the amount due also is not barred by limitation except for six months. That apart, the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 (45 of 1994) which has come into force with effect from May 24, 1994, displaces the effect of Act 27 of 1952 as amended by Act 37 of 1957. The Municipal Corporation, as enjoined under Section 4 of 1994 Act has yet to be constituted. After coming into force of the 1994 Act, the Chief Administrator has been denuded of the power to levy property tax. In view of these subsequent changes, it is unnecessary, rather academic, to decide the question decided by the High Court in the impugned order. Moreover, the connected appeals C.A. Nos. 3536, 3539, 3541-43/79 filed against the main judgment were dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on May 10, 1995 and became final. Under these circumstances, we think that these are not proper cases to go into the question.
2. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
