Karnataka High Court
M/S. Paparam Bricks And Tiles, Hinkal, ... vs Hinkal Village Panchayat, Mysore And ... on 8 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: ILR1997KAR2878
Author: H.L. Dattu
Bench: H.L. Dattu
ORDER
1. Demand notice dated 4-7-1994 issued by respondent-Hilkal Village Panchayat, its correctness or otherwise is being called in question by the petitioner-Industry in this writ petition. Incidentally, it is seeking for a writ to quash the orders made by Appellate Authority dated 12-7-1990 under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act, 1983.
2. Petitioner's industry is situated in premises bearing Nos. 192, 193/1 and 193/3 of Hilkal Village, Mysore District. petitioner-Industry was paying property tax at the rate of Rs. 640/-till 1986-1987.
3. For the years 1987-1988 and 1988-1989 petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 10-12-1988 directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,662/- being the enhanced property tax. Being aggrieved by this illegal and arbitrary demand notice, petitioner-Industry questioned the same in an appeal before the Zilla Parishad. By a communication dated 12-7-1990 petitioner was informed by the office of the Appellate Authority that by an order dated 12-7-1990 the petitioner's appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority and the demand notice dated 16-12-1988 issued by the Village Panchayat has been confirmed. It is stated in the petition that aggrieved by these orders petitioner-Industry had approached the Civil Court and during the pendency of the civil suit, on the advice of their Counsel, he has approached this Court only in the year 1995 and during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has also stated, that the suit has been withdrawn in view of specific provision in Section 304 of the Zilla Parishad Act.
4. Subsequent to the issue of demand notice dated 16-12-1988 the respondents have also issued a demand notice dated 4-7-1994 inter alia demanding property tax for the years 1987-1988 to 1993-1994 to a sum of Rs. 1,12,934-00. Demand for property tax is each year's affair. It is continuous as long as it is not paid. The cause of action arises to an aggrieved party whenever a demand notice is issued and served on the owner of the property. In the instant case the latest demand notice is dated 4-7-1994 by which notice the respondent-Village Panchayat has directed the petitioner to pay property tax for the assessment years 1987-1988 to 1993-1994.
5. Petitioner-Industry is questioning in this writ petition not only the demand notice dated 16-12-1988, by which notice respondents had directed the petitioner to pay property tax for the years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 and also the subsequent demand notice dated 4-7-1994 by which notice respondents have directed the petitioner to pay property tax for the years 1987-1988 to 1993-1994 on the ground that the enhancement of property tax is contrary to provisions of Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act, 1983. Insofar as the order made by the Appellate Authority is concerned, it is said in the petition that the said order is a non-speaking order made without assigning reasons muchless proper reasons for rejecting the statutory appeal. Insofar as delay in questioning the orders made by the Appellate Authority before the Civil Court by filing the civil suit, the time spent there should be taken into consideration while condoning the delay, if any, in approaching this Court. That apart, it is also stated that payment of property tax is every day's and year's affair and since the petitioner is questioning the latest demand notice issued by respondent-Village Panchayat dated 6-7-1994, in which all the earlier demand notices have been merged including the demand notice dated 16-7-1985. There is no delay muchless inordinate delay in approaching this Court questioning the correctness or otherwise of the demand notice for payment of property tax for the assessment years 1987-1988 to 1993-1994 and also the orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 12-7-1990, confirming the demand notice dated 16-7-1988 by which notice respondents had demanded enhanced property tax for the years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988.
6. No doubt this Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy, the indolent, acquiescent and lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not sufficiently and properly explained, this Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience. In the instant case as I have already stated what is being questioned is not only the order made by the Appellate Authority dated 12-7-1990 in which order the earlier demand notice dated 16-4-1988 has merged, but also subsequent demand notices for the subsequent years basing on the rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. Cause being continuous, it cannot be said that there is any delay by the petitioner in approaching this Court for the reliefs as indicated by me earlier.
7. The next question which requires to be considered is, whether Panchayat has complied with the provisions of the Act before issuing impugned demand notice directing the petitioner to pay the enhanced property tax is a mixed question of fact and law. This necessarily has to be decided by final fact finding authority, namely, Appellate Authority constituted under the statutory provisions. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner has glossed over all the contentions and grounds urged by the petitioner/appellant and in a most mechanical manner and without even assigning any reasons muchless proper reasons has rejected the appeal. The only reason assigned by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the petitioner's appeal is that there are no grounds to interfere with the demand notice issued by Village Panchayat. The Appellate Authority does "not even refer to any one of the contentions urged by the appellant in its memorandum of appeal nor has the Appellate Authority given its own finding to reject the appeal preferred by the appellant. In my view the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not only a laconic order but also an order passed in a most mechanical manner without assigning at least one cogent reason to reject the appeal. In that view of the matter the order passed by the Appellate Authority requires to be set aside by this Court which had confirmed the demand notice dated 10-4-1988 directing the petitioner to pay property tax for the years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988.
8. Before I conclude, let me notice what respondents have stated in their statement of objections. They only state that the demand notice in the instant case has been issued only after complying with the provisions of the Zilla Parishad Act, but a perusal of the records produced by the respondents' learned Counsel before this Court belies their statement. Apart from this, much is said with regard to parallel remedy resorted to by the petitioner and so called delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. When a specific question was asked whether the respondents had complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act before enhancing the property tax, the learned Counsel for respondents in a most uncharacteristic manner states that nothing need be done under Zilla Parishad Act, when the Zilla Parishad enhances the property tax payable by the parties in respect of immovable property coming within their jurisdiction. It may not be in good taste to comment upon the submissions made by the learned Counsel for respondent.
9. Since I intend to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to give a positive finding on the issue whether the Village Panchayat had complied with the provisions of Zilla Parishad Act, 1983 and the rules framed thereunder before enhancing the property tax from Rs. 680/- to Rs. 10,680/- per year. I do not propose to consider this issue and the contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioner in this regard.
10. For the reasons stated, petition is allowed. The orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 12-7-1990 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner in Appeal No. 21/3:89-90 and give a positive finding whether the Village Panchayat, Hilkal, Mysore District, had complied with or not the provisions of Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act, 1983 and the rules framed thereunder before enhancing the property tax of the petitioner-industry. Till such time, respondents are restrained from enforcing the demand notice dated 4-7-1994 demanding the property tax for the year 1986-1987 to 1993-1994. Ordered accordingly.