Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JANGI LAL JAIN & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 Section 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 tile limitation for recovery of the amount due also is
now 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 hay 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.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2