LexSRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI AND ORS. versus CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SRIKANT KASH!NATH JITURI AND ORS. v. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM OCTOBER 5, 1994 B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, AM. AHMADI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] Kamataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 : C Sections 108, 109, 117, 147 and 148-Schedule III-Part ~Taxation Rules-Rules 2, 5 to 8, 18 to 20, 22 and 25. Property T~evision of-Assessees filing representative suit before a Civil Court impugning tax enhancement instead of filing appeal as provided under Rules alleging arbitrary enhancement of tax and pressure on assessors D to increase tax and inspection and measurement of houses without prior notice-Held on such allegations suit is not maintainable-Jurisdiction of Civil Court held ousted. E Property Tax-Method of determination of on the basis of fair rent alone regardless of actual rent-Whether sound. Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 9. Civil Coult-Exclusion of jurisdiction-Principles relating to-What are. The respondent-Corporation revised the property tax in 1984. The F appellants questioned the said revision by filing a representative suit, instead of filing an appeal as provided under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, pleading that (i) enhancement in the property.tax was arbitrary, imreasonable and illegal; (ii) since the property tax is determined on the basis of fair rent, there cannot be any increase of tax inasmuch as no alterations have been effected in any of the houses; G (iii) the assessors inspected and measured the houses without prior notice to owners; and (iv) the assessors were pressurised to increase the property tax. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was not main- tainable in Civil Court by virtue of Rule 25. The appellate Court took a contrary view holding that the suit was maintainable. The High Court H reversed the decision of the first appellate court holding that the suit was 262 S.K. JITURl v. CbRPN. 263 not maintainable. A In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the suit was maintainable because (I) the remedy of appeal was not efficacious because the right of second appeal was coupled with an onerous condition of depositing the entire property tax; (ii) if a writ petition is maintainable without filing the second appeal provided by Rule 20, a snit B is eqnally maintainable. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The present snit, on the allegations contained in the plaint C itself - let alone the findings of the Court - is not maintainable in a Civil Conrt. None of the gromids on which an assessment made under the Karnataka Act can be challenged in a civil court, Is even alleged In the plaint. There is no allegation that there bas been a non-compliance with· any of the provisions of the statute let alone non-compliance with any of the fundamental provisions of the statute. No reasons are given as to why D the appellant did not file appeals before the Taxation Appeals Committee. All that is complained of is that the enhancement of tax is excessive. That by itself is not enough. Similarly, the allegation that enhancement is arbitrary or .nnreasonable is per se ·not SJlfficlent to over-ride the eipress statutory bar. The High Conrt was, therefore, right in holding that the said E snit is not maintainable In Civil Court. [268-G, H, 266-H, 268-H, 269-A) Dhulabhai and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh andAnr., [1968] 3 S.C.R. 662 and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [1993) 3 S.C.C. 161, relied on. 2. 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 r•medy but that can never be a ground F for maintaining a civil snit. Both the jurisdictions are different and are governed by different principles. Article 226 provides a consititutional G 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 constitntion!'I power whereas the jurisdiction of a civil court arises from another statute viz., Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case, the bar arising from an express provision like Rule 25 or arising by necessary intendment can be over-ridden only in cases and situations which are judicially recog- H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A nised. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters is go
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.