The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, regarding the validity of a notice proposing enhancement of rateable value and its impact on subsequent assessment orders.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Vide notice dated March 25, 1998, which was received by the respondent herein on April 4, 1998, the appellant/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation') proposed to enhance the rateable value of the respondent property w.e.f. April 1, 1997. Pursuant to the said notice, assessment order dated March 11, 2001 was passed whereby assessment pertaining to the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2001-02 was revised. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing appeal before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appeal was allowed holding the notice to be bad in law and thereby quashing the order as well. That order has been upheld by the single Judge of the High Court as well as by the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench is impugned in the present appeal. With this introduction, let us recapitulate the facts in brief, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. With regard to the property of the respondent in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, the annual rateable value of the property was Rs.16,300/-. On March 25, 1998, the Corporation issued a notice in terms of Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act') proposing to enhance the rateable value to Rs.16,30,370/- w.e.f. April 1, 1997. This notice was dispatched under registered AD cover on March 27, 1998, which was received by the respondent on April 4, 1998. The order finalising the assessment was made on March 11, 2001. As per the said order, rateable value was fixed at Rs.11,35,260/- w.e.f. April 1, 1997; Rs.15,66,720/- w.e.f. March 1, 1998 and Rs.16,30,370/- w.e.f. January 1, 2001. The assessment order was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal under Section 169 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The ground raised was that the notice dated March 25, 1998 was, in fact, received by it through registered post only on April 4, 1998 and, therefore, the same was time barred. Another ground taken was that the notice in question could not be used for finalising assessments of later and subsequent years in the absence of independent notices in that regard. The Additional District Judge, Delhi vide its judgment dated July 12, 2001 allowed the appeal, holding that the notice proposing enhancement in rateable value had to be served on or before March 31, 1998 and since it was served only on April 4, 1998, the same was time barred.

Aggrieved thereupon, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 672 of 2002 before the High Court of Delhi. The single Judge by order dated February 21, 2002 affirmed the view taken by the Additional District Judge and dismissed the writ petition. The said order of the single Judge was challenged by the appellant herein before the Division Bench of the High Court in intra court appeal. By impugned order dated March 4, 2005, the High Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the order of the Courts below.

3. Since, the legal issues which need to be decided relate to the interpretation of Section 126 of the Act, we would like to reproduce the said provision at this stage:

"126. Amendment of assessment list (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list- (a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or (b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or (c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or (d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or (e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or (f) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or (g) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after the prepa