Back
1988 Supreme(Del) 14
High Court Of Delhi
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Respondent
Civil Writ 2385 of 1987
Decided On : 01/08/1988
B.K.SUD, R.P.Lao
Machinery installed in a building or on land cannot be taken into account while computing the market value of land or building for the purpose of ascertaining rateable value for property tax purposes.
Headnote:
PROPERTY TAX - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - SECTION 114(1) - ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY TAX - MACHINERY INSTALLED IN BUILDING - WHETHER CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE COMPUTING MARKET VALUE OF LAND OR BUILDING - HELD, NO
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenged an order of the Additional District Judge quashing an assessment order enhancing the rateable value of a property. The Additional District Judge had held that the assessment order was invalid because it did not contain any reasons and had also directed that the assessing authority should not take into account the cost of machinery while fixing the rateable value.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Additional District Judge was correct in quashing the assessment order because it did not contain any reasons. The court also held that the Additional District Judge was correct in directing that the assessing authority should not take into account the cost of machinery while fixing the rateable value.
Issues: Whether the assessing authority can take into account the cost of machinery while fixing the rateable value of a property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term "building" in Section 2(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 does not include machinery installed in the building. The court also held that the term "land" in Section 2(24) of the Act does not include machinery installed on land. Therefore, the court held that the assessing authority cannot take into account the cost of machinery while fixing the rateable value of a property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for challenging certain directions given in the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 9th September, 1985 whereby learned Additional District Judge quashed the assessment order dated 14th September, 1984 eahancing ratenble value partly with effect from 14th June, 1979 and again revising it from 30th November, 1981.
( 2 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge basically set aside the assessment order on the ground that it contains no reasons. While passing the impugned order quashing assessment order dared 14th September, 1984, learned Additional District Judge also directed that while passing the assessment order again the assessing authority will not take into account cost of the machinery,
( 3 ) THE assesses had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 741/ 86 challenging bill dated 17th September, 1985 which had been issued in spite of the appellate order dated 9th September, 1985. That writ petition was decided by division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3rd September, 1987 wherein the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had agreed that the assessing authority will assess the property in the light of the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 9th September, 1985 mentioned earlier. However, this order was made subject to the decision, if any, in the present writ petition.
( 4 ) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the Corporation, Mr. Lao is that the observations of the learned Additional District Judge that assessing authority shall not take into account the cost of the machinery while fixing rateable value are not in accordance with law. He submits that the decision which has been relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge reported as Bansi Dhar Vs. NDMC DLT (10) 1974 page 176 (1), is not applicable since the word "appurtenance" which appear in Section 3 clause (b) of the Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911) does not appear in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
( 5 ) PROPERTY taxes are leviable under Section 114 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as act ). The property taxes are payable on land and building. One of the basis adopted for fixing rateable value is on the basis of value of the land and cost of construction of the building. It is a certain percentage thereof, as provided in the Delhi Rent Control Act, which has to be taken into account while fixing rateable value of the land and building. Since the Supreme Court has taken the view that rateable value in Delhi of land and building cannot be higher than the standard rent thereof, for finding out the value of land and building, it will be useful to see the definition thereof given in Section 2 (24) and (3) respectively of the Act. The term land is defined as under :- "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street; The term building is defined as under:- "building" means a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter;
( 6 ) IT will be noticed that "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; whereas "building" is defined as meaning which has been noticed earlier. The question which is involved in the writ petition is whether the value of machinery like lift provided in the building can be taken into account while computing market value of land or building for finding out rateable value for purposes of Section 114. of the Act. It is clear that the term building does not include the lift which has been provided in the building. Mr. Lao, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submits that lift wi
