Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No.31 of 1981, decided on 30th April, 1987.

---Sch. VIII, Chap. 11,R.7--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Reassessment of rental value of property--Notice--Respondent Corpora tion making amendment in assessment and thereafter inviting objections from petitioners against revised assessment--Action of respondent Corporation, held, was not in accordance with law--Decrees and judgments of Courts below dismissing suit of petitioners for declaration and injunction as to illegality of assessment set aside and suit decreed--Respondent Corporation was at liberty to revise or amend assessment at any time -after giving proper notice to petitioners.

Karachi Municipal Corporation and Statutory Body v Eduljee Dinshaw Ltd. and another P L D 1974 Kar.328 ref.

M. G. Dastagir for Petitioners.

S. M. Muslim Naqvi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 31st March, 1987.

This revision application is directed against the appellate judgment passed by the Additional District Judge No. VIII, Karachi, dated 15-12-1980, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against dismissal of his suit by the learned Fourth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are, that the applicant filled a suit against the respondents for declaration and injunction as he was aggrieved by the revised assessment of taxes made by the respondent in respect of his property situated on Plot No. 65/1, G. W. R. Karachi. According to the applicant, the original assessment of rent in respect of property in question which was Rs.701.75 per month was enhanced to Rs.1,296 per month. After enhancement of the assessment the respondents sent a notice, dated 12-12-1961, to the applicants informing them about the revised assessment and also inviting objections from them, if they had any against such assessment. The applicants then filed objections which were not 'considered and consequently, the applicants received a demand from the respondents for payment of Rs.4,190.05 as due on account of the assessment. The applicants then challenged the action of the respondents by filing a suit for declaration and injunction as pointed out above. However, after framing issues and recording evidence in the case, the learned fourth Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 26-3-1980. The appeal filed by the applicants was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 15-12-1980, and hence this revision application.

I have heard Mr. M. G. Dastagir, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muslim Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondents.

The only point urged by Mr. M. G. Dastagir before this Court has been, that the re-assessment of the rental value of the property by the respondents without serving a proper notice on the applicants as required by Rule 7 in Chapter II of Schedule VIII to the City of A Karachi Municipality Act, 1933 was illegal and both the learned subordinate Courts erred in failing to Apply their minds to this question. Reliance in this respect has been placed on the case of Karachi Municipal Corporation and Statutory Body v. Eduljee Dinshaw Ltd. and another P L D 1974 Kar.328 wherein a D.B. of this Court had held that revised assessment of rental value made by the K.M.C. without serving notice on the party concerned as required by the aforesaid rule 7 would be illegal.

In order to appreciate the point, Rule 7 may be reproduced as under:-

7. (1) The Chief Officer may at any time amend the list by inserting the name of any person whose name ought to have been inserted, or by including any land or building which ought to have been included; or by altering the assessment on any land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessment through fraud, accident, or mistake, or of which the rent has been raised since the date of assessment after giving notice to the person interested in the amendment, of a time, not less than one month from the date of service of such notice, at which the amendment to be made.

(2) Any person interested in any such amendment may tender his objection to the Chief Officer in writing before the time fixed in the notice and shall be a11owed an opportunity of being heard in support of the same, either in person or by authorised agent as he may think fit.

(3) Where a new building. Is erected after that completion of the assessment list, the Chief Officer may cause it to be added to the list, and in such ease the provisions of rules 4,5 and 6 shall apply, except that no public notice shall be required. In such a case the assessment shall take effect from the beginning of the month following the, date on which the building is added to the assessment list or, is occupied-arid productive of rent, whichever is earlier."

A bare perusal of the would indicate that it required notice to be given to the parties concerned before making any amendment in the assessment list and, not after according to Mr. Muslim Naqvi the respondents did send a notice dated 12-12-1961 to the applicants and therefore according to him that was sufficient compliance with Rule 7, but this notice which has been reproduced at para. 8 of the memorandum of revision filed by the applicants shows, that the K.M.C. toad already revised the assessment by fixing the same at Rs.1,296 per month and then directed the-applicants to submit objections which they might be having against such assessment. The notice, therefore, clearly failed to meet the requirements of rule 7, which, as has been pointed out already, required sending notice before amendment of the Assessment list

For the aforesaid reason, I hold that the action taken by the K.C.M. was not in accordance with law and the learned subordinate Courts have erred in not considering this aspect of the case properly. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the judgement passed by both the learned subordinate Courts a set aside and the suit of the applicants is consequently decreed as prayed. It may however, be pointed out that it will always be open to the respondents to revise the assessment or amend the assessment list afters giving proper notice to the applicants as required by Rule 7

M. Y. H. /M-283/,K Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.