2004 PLP 1161 (MLD)

This judgment shall decide C.R. No: 422 of 2000 and C.R. No.419 of 2000 as common questions are involved.

2. On 24‑3‑1988 the respondents in these cases filed two suits against the petitioner. It was stated in the plaint that they are residents of village Chitta More Dahar Jawa, Teshil Murree, District Rawalpindi and they have built up property in the said village. The grievance being made out was that the said village is not an urban area within the meaning of the provisions of the West Pakistan Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 but the petitioners are demanding and recovering immovable property tax from them. The plea taken in the written statement was that the properties of the respondents are located in urban area within the Municipal Limits of Murree and the petitioners have the lawful authority to levy and recover the said tax. Inter alia, following Issue No.3 and Issue No.2 were respectively framed by the learned trial Courts in the two suits:‑‑ "Issue No.3. Whether the property in dispute is assessable for the purposes of property and house tax and the defendants are entitled to recover any property or house tax from the plaintiff? OPD. Issue No.2. Whether the defendants are justified to recover property and house tax regarding property in dispute through coercive measures? OPD." Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Courts decreed the suits on 3‑5‑1992 and 28‑11‑1995 respectively. First appeals filed by the petitioners were heard by a learned ADJ Rawalpindi, who dismissed the two appeals vide judgments and decree, dated 22‑5‑2000 and 24‑5‑2000 respectively.

3. Learned A.A.‑G. contended that the onus of said issues was wrongly placed upon the petitioner as it was plaintiffs/respondents in these cases who were seeking the relief. According to him, it stands proved on record that the property in question is located within the limits of Municipal Committee, Murree and as such is an urban property within the meaning of the said Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the respondents in these cases, on the other hand, relies upon section 3 of the said Act of 1958 to urge that in the absence of a notification specifying the said area to be an urban area, the said tax cannot be levied or recovered.

4. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now there is no doubt that the said village Chitta More Dahar Jawa is located within the limits of Murree Municipal Committee. However, at the same time section 3(1) of the said Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, enjoins that the Government (Provincial) may by notification specify urban areas where tax shall be levied under the said Act. There is further provision for dividing of one urban area into two or more rating areas and at the same time for grouping together of several urban areas into one rating area. Subsection (2) of section 3 then provides for levy of the tax and its payment at the annual value of the building and lands in a rating area. It will thus be seen that in the first instance the Government is required to specify by notification the urban areas where the tax shall be levied under the Act and in the second the rating areas are to be specified and it is in respect of a building or land located in such rating area that the tax shall be charged, received and paid. There is no evidence on record that such a notification has been issued by the Government specifying the said, village to be an urban area and then the formation of the rating area to enable the petitioners to charge, levy and make the respondents liable to pay the said tax.

5. Now coming to the said contention of learned A.A.-G. the same hardly carries force. In view of specific denial by the plaintiffs that the said village does not fall within a rating area it was by all means for the petitioners to prove the affirmative.

6. Both the civil revisions are without any force and are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./P-19/L Revision dismissed.