Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) WRIT of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to transfer/mutate the portion of the property, namely, west half wing comprising of the basement, ground floor, the entire first floor and western half of the barsati floor with land under-neath at F. 44-A, New Delhi South Extension Part-I, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner with further direction to quash the warrant of distress and attachment orders (annexures-VI and VII) dated 7. 10. 1988 and 13. 10. 1988 respectively and to restrain the respondents from collecting arrears of Municipal Property Tax amounting to Rs. 1,82,918. 00 or any other arrears of Municipal Tax as reflected in the bill (annexure-V) pertaining to the predecessors in interest of the petitioner or the other co-owners of the property in occupation of the other half is sought in this petition instituted on 19. 10. 1988.

( 2 ) IT is the petitioner s case that through an agreement of sale dated 23. 6. 1983 entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, the petitioner agreed to purchase the aforementioned half wing of property, namely, F. 45-A, N. D. S. E. Part-I, New Delhi with land under-neath as well as the East half wing of the first floor of the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25,15,000. 00. A formal sale deed was executed on 11. 10. 1985 by respondent No. 5, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar-III, Delhi on the same day. It is alleged that under the terms of the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed, it was covenanted between the parties that all municipal charges and taxes of the land underneath would be paid by the vendor upto the end of the financial year 1982-83 and thereafter by the vendee. Pursuant to the deed of sale, the petitioner on and from 4. 4. 1985 has been paying its share of Municipal Tax and cess for the period commencing from 1. 4. 1983.

( 3 ) IT is further alleged that through various letters, respondent No. 1 was informed about the sale transaction with a prayer for mutating the property in petitioner s favour and to apportion its share of Municipal Taxes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. For the period prior to 1983-84 the petitioner company was not at all liable to pay taxes. This request was followed by another letter reiterating its stand contained in letter dated 13. 9. 1987 with further request that the property be mutated in its favour. It is alleged that the petitioner had so far cleared its liability towards Municipal Taxes for its portion of the property, respondent No. 1 has been insisting upon to pay taxes even for the remaining share of the property. Finally the petitioner on 17. 10. 1988 received a letter from its banker stating that it had received warrant of distress from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi attaching a sum of Rs. 1,82,918. 00 from all bank accounts of the in petitioners. Along with the letter the bankers also forwarded a copy of the Distress Warrant.

( 4 ) IT is the petitioner s case that it is not at all liable to pay taxes as demanded by respondents 1 and 2. The attachment of its bank accounts is illegal and arbitrary. Municipal taxes prior to 1. 4. 1983 cannot be foisted upon or transferred to the petitioner because the petitioner had served requisite notice of the transfer on respondents. The petitioner does not fall within the concept of a person primarily liable to property taxes within the ambit of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner company became owner of the property upon the execution of the sale deed on 11. 4. 1985 although it had agreed to pay taxes after 1. 4. 1983, as per terms of agreement of sale. The petitioner in any case cannot be held liable to pay taxes prior to 1. 4. 1983.

( 5 ) THE respondents in their reply filed on the affidavit of Shri A. L. Agnihotri, Legal Assistant (Taxes), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have stated that under Section 123 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation of Act, 1957 all taxes are a first cha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document