' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---As the questions for determination in the above mentioned Writ Petition No,1881 of 2007 and Writ Petition No,562 of 2003 are almost same so these are being decided through this single order.
2. In the petition at Serial No,01, it is contended that the petitioner filed objections with the respondent Assessm ent Committee in respect of the proposed assessment of property tax, owned by him, which have been rejected illegally and he has been directed to file appeal before the District Magistrate. It was urged that the post of District Magistrate did not exist at relevant time and that determination of the points raised by him are beyond the power and jurisdiction of the District Magistrate/ A Appellate. Authority under the Cantonments Act, 1924 so the appeal before the District Magistrate/Appellate Authority is not an adequate and efficacious remedy and only this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter authoritatively because the Additional Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board has adopted a noval formula for assessment and levy of Property Tax, which is ultra vires of the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. It is contended that he received a notice for payment of property tax for the years 2002-2003 amounting to Rs,3,73,028 and assailed the same through Writ Petition No,562 of 2003, in which ad interim injunction was granted on 11-3-2003 but the application for grant of ad interim injunction was rejected due to expiry of period of six months, after which the injunction against public revenue stands vacated. He contended that he again received notice dated 21-6-2007 on 18-8-2007, whereby he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs,2,68,066 as property tax for the period upto 30-6-2007. It was contended that the demand was illegal as no opportunity of hearing was granted to him: that previously the property tax was Rs,50,000 as per notice issued on 12-11-2006 and now the demand for the disputed amount has been made, which is not only arbitrary but is also without any lawful authority; that the demand for the past is illegal as no tax could be levied with retrospective effect; that the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi stands dissolved and this Court in Writ Petition No,415 of 1995 had ruled that the ad hock committee could only make payment. Of salary and utility bills; that notice issued by the respondent under section 255-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is in violation of the of provisions of sections 60(2), 61, 64 66, 67, 68, 71 and 103 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and that the property tax has been enhanced several hundred percent without publication of proposal, hearing the objections and decision in this regard.
3. In Writ Petition No,562 of 2003 the petitioner had challenged the notice making demand for payment of tax almost with the same contentions and contended that the assessment of ARV should have been completed before 30-6-1999 but it was not done so and that the bills of tax were issued after expiry of period of more than three years; that the formula adopted by the Additional Executive Officer is illegal as no Board has lawfully been constituted and that no sanction of the Federal Government was obtained before enhancing the rate.
4. The respondent contended that the petitioner had agreed to the Annual Rental Value of the property assessed by the committee so is estopped by his conduct to file the writ petition; that the controversy as to the arrears included in the bill requires an inquiry so it is primarily a question of fact and as such the writ petition is not maintainable; that the Assessment Committee decided the objections in accordance with law; that the Board is constituted in accordance with law and notification has been issued by the Federal Government so all acts done and action taken are lawful; that the petitioner has efficacious remedies in form of appeal, review and revision under the law and as such the petitions are not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the constitution and composition of the board is not lawful as no elections were held and there is no representation of the elected members; that the tax was enhanced with retrospective effect and that the appellate authority i.e, Director Military Land and Cantonments is not in a position to adjudicate upon the important questions raised in the writ petition so the law does not provide the efficacious remedy and as such the writ jurisdiction is competent. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 1997 SCMR 01.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the declaration under section 14(1) and names of the ihembers under subsection (3) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 were duly notified vide notification No, S.R.O. 1145(1)/99 dated 5-11-1999, which has been extended from time to time and that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings of the committee and as such cannot claim that he was contemned unheard. It is also urged that the petitioner has efficacious remedy in -form of appeal and as such the petitions are not maintainable; that the bill included the arrears so the factual controversy as to correctness of the bill or otherwise of the same cannot resolve without recording evidence so the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2004 SCM R 400, PLD 1991 SC 102 and 2002 YLR 1557.
7. Section 84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 clearly provides that an appeal against the assessment or levy of any tax under the said Act shall lie to the District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the Central Government in this behalf. Vide Notification No,S.R.O. 1293(1)/2008 dated 22-12-2008, the Director Military Land and Cantonments has been designated as appellate authority. The period when the office of the District Magistrate did not exist, this power was conferred upon the District Judges. The remedy in form of appeal was always available. In addition to the appeal, the remedies are also available in form of review under section 88 and revision under section 277 of the Act ibid. The contention that the appellate authority will not be able to properly comprehend the questions involved in this matter and would not be able to decide the same in accordance with law is devoid of force. The law has provided efficacious remedy and no one can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction in presence of efficacious remedy under the law. In this respect reliance is placed on PLD 1991 SC 102 and 2004 SCM R 400. It is contended by the petitioner that the disputed bill contains enhanced rate with retrospective effect, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner had himself agreed to the rental value of the house and the bill includes arrears also. This is primarily a question of fact and cannot be resolved in exercise of the constitutional writ jurisdiction as held above and even otherwise this contention also can be agitated before the appellate forum. For the reasons supra, both the petitions are without merits and are accordingly dismissed.