Back
rejects 's plea for uniform property tax method
A Division Bench of the has dismissed a petition filed by the seeking directions to the to formulate and implement a uniform method for determining rateable values of properties for property tax assessment. The Court held that such reliefs cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction under , as the methodology of assessment falls within the statutory and administrative domain of the competent authority.
Case Background
The , representing property owners, entrepreneurs, and residents in commercial and mixed-use areas under NDMC jurisdiction, alleged that the NDMC was applying different methods—such as the , actual rent, comparable rent, and historical rateable values—to similarly situated properties. This, the Association argued, resulted in wide disparities in property tax liability. The Association sought a directing the NDMC to adopt a uniform assessment methodology until the UAM is formally implemented, constitution of an expert committee to investigate alleged irregularities, and strict compliance with various provisions of the .
The dispute arose after the in New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors. v. & Ors. () declared the (which introduced a including UAM) as , but protected assessments of those who had already paid tax under those Bye-laws. Following that judgment, NDMC continued applying different assessment approaches to different categories of assessees, which the Association claimed was discriminatory.
Arguments Presented
Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that prescribes a single statutory basis for determining —the at which a property might reasonably be expected to let—and that NDMC cannot, by administrative practice, create different classes of properties and apply different yardsticks. The continued use of UAM principles after the 's judgment was impermissible, and glaring disparities in assessment lists demonstrated violative of .
NDMC countered that Section 63(1) does not prescribe a mathematical formula but a standard, and that different evidentiary considerations (actual rent, comparable rent, hypothetical rent) are all relevant to applying that standard. The continuation of earlier rateable values for assessees protected by the 's directions could not be equated with fresh adoption of invalid Bye-laws. NDMC also pointed out that the NDMC Act provides a complete machinery of assessment, objection, and appeal, and that writ jurisdiction should not be used to secure a general reworking of the entire property tax regime.
Legal Analysis
The Court examined the scope of a
, emphasising that it is issued to enforce a legal right corresponding to a legal or public duty. The Court cannot, under the guise of mandamus, assume the statutory or administrative function of the authority itself.
"The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority,"
the Bench observed.
The Court found that the reliefs sought—particularly the direction to formulate a uniform method and constitute an expert committee—went beyond permissible mandamus. Such directions would require the Court to prescribe the manner in which a
should be exercised, which is not the function of
.
"The power under Article 226 is a power of
and not a power to administer the statute,"
the judgment stated.
The Court also noted that the petition was not in the nature of public interest litigation, and the association had not demonstrated any independent legal right of its own that had been infringed. Individual grievances of members could not be aggregated to seek systemic relief through mandamus.
Key Observations
In a pivotal passage, the Court stated:
"An assessment or levy which is shown, in an appropriate proceeding, to be contrary to the statute, without jurisdiction, discriminatory in a legally cognisable sense, or otherwise vitiated by an impermissible exercise of power, can certainly be subjected to
. But that is materially different from asking the Court to prescribe a uniform assessment methodology for the Respondents or to establish an expert mechanism for overseeing their statutory functions."
The Court further clarified:
"This does not mean that the Respondents are free to act arbitrarily. The
vested in them remains subject to the requirements of the NDMC Act and to the constitutional limitations governing State action."
Court's Decision
The dismissed the writ petition, holding that prayers (a), (c), and (d)—seeking direction to formulate a uniform method, constitute an expert committee, and ensure strict compliance with statutory provisions—could not be granted in writ jurisdiction. Prayer (b), challenging the expression "at any time" in , was not pressed.
The Court clarified that its dismissal does not preclude individual assessees from availing remedies under the NDMC Act against specific assessments, including challenges to determination or procedural non-compliance. The judgment leaves the door open for property owners to contest their individual assessments through the statutory appellate mechanism.
