9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation in the year 1984 is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and should not be enforced against the owners of the houses in Belgaum. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable in Civil Court by virtue of Rule 25 aforesaid. On appeal, however, the first Appellate Court took a contrary view. It held that the suit is maintainable and, accordingly, remitted the matter, to the trial Court for disposal on merits. The order of the Appellate Judge was questioned by the Municipal Corporation by way of miscellaneous civil appeal which has been allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court. 2. Sub-section 2 of Section 108 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for levy of property tax. It fixes a certain ceiling beyond which the tax cannot be levied. Sub-section 3 provides that for the purposes of assessing the property tax, the rateable value of any building or land shall be determined by the Commissioner. Section 109 prescribes the method of assessment of property tax. It also prescribes the method in which the rateable value of a building or land shall be determined. Section 117 empowers the Commissioner to ask for any information, and also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned revision was made. The plaintiffs did not file the appeal as provided by the rules but came forward with this representative suit. We shall now notice the allegations in the plaint to determine whether the said allegations bring the suit within the purview of the Civil Court notwithstanding the bar contained in Rule 25. The main allegations of the plaintiffs are that the valuation of the properties within the Corporation limits has risen from ₹ 2.5 crores in 1979 to ₹ 9 crores in 1984 and that the tax has gone up from ₹ 50 lakhs per annual to ₹ 1.8 crores per annum. This enhancement is termed as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal. It is stated that the enhancement in some cases is 10 to 20 times times or more. It is submitted that according to the decisions of this Court, property tax must be determined on the basis of fair rent and, therefore, there cannot be any increase of property tax from 1979 to 1984 since no additions or alterations have been effected to any house in the Corporation limits. Plaintiffs also complain that the assessors inspected the houses and took measurements of the plinth area of the buildings, without giving prior notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that condition, either partly or wholly, whatever be the circumstances - the said remedy of appeal cannot be called an adequate or efficacious remedy. For this reason, the learned Counsel submitted, the suit is maintainable. Learned counsel contended that if a writ petition is maintainable without filing the second appeal provided by Rule 20, a suit is equally maintainable. In our opinion, the said contention is based upon a misconception. Such an onerous provision may be a ground for entertaining a writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is not an adequate or efficacious remedy see Himmat Lal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh but that can never be a ground for maintaining a civil suit. Both the jurisdictions are different and are governed by different principles. Article 226 provides a constitutional remedy. It confers the power of judicial review on High Courts. The finality clause in a statute is not a bar to the exercise of this constitutional power whereas the jurisdiction of a civil court arises from another statute, viz., Section 9 of the CPC. In such a case, the bar arising from an express provision like Rule 25 or arising by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
