Back
High Court Of Delhi
COMMON CAUSE - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 1652 of 1991
Decided On : 07/12/1991
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - ASSESSMENT OF RATEABLE VALUE - AMENDMENT OF ASSESSMENT LIST - NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS - VALIDITY - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957, SECTIONS 116, 126, 169, 172 - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, SECTION 3(C) - CONSTITUTIONALITY - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed a writ petition challenging the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) to various property owners in Delhi for enhancement of the rateable value of their properties. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued without proper reasons and that the amendment to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which allowed for the revision of rateable value, was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as remedies were provided under the Act and each noticee might have different objections to raise to the proposed rateable value. The court also held that the amendment to the Act was constitutional and that the MCD had the power to amend the assessment list if circumstances so required.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable? 2. Whether the amendment to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was constitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as remedies were provided under the Act and each noticee might have different objections to raise to the proposed rateable value. The court also held that the amendment to the Act was constitutional and that the MCD had the power to amend the assessment list if circumstances so required. 2. The court held that the amendment to the Act was constitutional as it was a reasonable restriction on the right to property and was in the public interest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order granted earlier, except to the extent that time for filing objections to the notices shall remain extended uptil 31st July, 1991.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by way of public intetest litigation. The petitioner claiming to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the respondents Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Committee to withhold all further actions on the notices issued by the authorities to various property owners in Delhi for enhancement of the rateable value of their properties. Then there are certain consequential reliefs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (M. C. D.) is constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the New Delhi Municipal Committee (N. D. M. C.) under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as extended to Delhi.
( 21 ) FOR the purpose of decision of this petition we may refer only to notices issued under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act ). It is stated M. C. D. issued as many as over a lakh of notices under Section 126 of the Act. On filing of this writ petition notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time while issuing notices a Bench of this Court also extended the time for filing objections to the notices uptil 31st July, 1991, which time under the notices was to expire on 31st May, 1991. It was also mentioned in the interim order that no final decision shall be taken by the M. C. D. in respect of the subject notices. M. C. D. has since filed its answer to show cause notice as well as its application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of the stay order. The affidavits in support of the answer to show cause notice as well as application are by Mr. V. C. Chaturvedi, Assessor and Collector, M. C. D.
( 3 ) THE Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was amended by the Amending Act 57 of 1988. . Clause (c) of Section 3 of this Act as amended states that nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees. The concept of standard rent as hithertofore, understood under the Delhi Rent Control Act is, therefore, no longer applicable to such premises. Constitutional validity of the amendment has been upheld by this Court. Under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act rateable value of a building is to be assessed and under sub-Section (1) the rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Then there are certain deductions. Then there is a proviso to this sub-Section which says that with respect to any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. The necessary consequence of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act would prima facie be that the premises which are outside the purview of that Act, its rateable value might have to be revised. For the amendment of the assessment list M. C. D. is to issue notices under Section 126 of the Act where it seeks to increase the rateable value and this can only be done after notice to the owner concerned and after considering his objections, if any, to the proposal mentioned in the notice. An appeal under the Act against any assessment, if objected to, is maintainable under Section 169 before the District Judge. One of the conditions of right of this appeal is that the amount, if any, in dispute in the appeal has to be deposited by the appellant in the office of the M. C. D. This is clause (b) of Section 172 of the Act. Constitutional validity of this provision has also been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Shyami Kishore v. M. C. D. ( AIR 1991 Delhi 104), where this Court said that deposit of tax was a condition precedent for hearing or determination of the appeal. Sectio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
