High Court Of Delhi
MAN MOHAN TULI - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 263 of 1972
Decided On : 05/24/1982
PROPERTY TAX - LIABILITY - PROPERTY SITUATED ON BORDERLINE OF UNION TERRITORY AND ADJOINING STATE - LEVY BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES OF BOTH JURISDICTIONS - JURISDICTIONAL FACT - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS - LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLIED BY COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's property, situated on the border of the Union Territory of Delhi and the adjoining State of Uttar Pradesh, was subjected to property tax by both the Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad. The petitioner challenged the levy, contending that only one municipal authority could impose property tax on the property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Delhi Municipal Corporation could not levy property tax on the petitioner's property because the property was not within the reach of the municipal services provided by the Corporation. The Court found that the area where the property was located was not developed according to the Master Plan and that there were physical impediments preventing the Corporation from providing services to the property. The Court also held that the levy of property tax was without jurisdiction and without legal competence under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether properties lying on the borderline of the Union Territory of Delhi and the adjoining State are liable to municipal property tax of Delhi? 2. Which municipal authority is entitled to collect property tax (general tax) Delhi Municipal Corporation or the municipal authorities in the adjoining States?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the territorial jurisdiction and taxation jurisdiction need not always be conterminous. It may be that in a given case it is not possible for the municipal authorities to extend its functions/administration to the fartherest end of its territory. In such a case the property cannot be taxed by a Municipal Authority. 2. The Court held that the property tax levied by the Delhi Municipal Corporation was without jurisdiction and without legal competence under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act because the property was not within the reach of the municipal services provided by the Corporation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the levy of property tax by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. The Court also directed the Corporation to refund the property tax paid by the petitioner.
( 1 ) WHETHER properties lying on the border line of the Union Territory of Delhi and the adjoining State are liable to municipal property tax of Delhi is an important question of law arising in this petition. To put it in a different form, the question is which municipal authority is entitled to collect property tax (general tax) Delhi Municipal Corporation or the municipal authorities in the adjoining States ? The difficulty has arisen in the present case because two municipal authorities have levied and collected property tax from the petitioner in regard to same property for the same year. Property bearing Municipal No. 483/49-B at G. T. Road Shahdara-Delhi-cum-U. P. border touches Union Territory of Delhi from north and east while from South and West side the property touches Uttar Pradesh (particularly territory comprising of Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad ). The property in question is used as a godown. It has no access from Delhi side. Admittedly, the access is only from U. P. side. Admittedly, because although it was asserted in the affidavit in reply by the Delhi Municipal Corporation that there is an access from the eastern side opening in Union Territory of Delhi, on examination of the relevant maps at the time of the argument, it was admitted by the counsel for Delhi Municipal Corporation that it was not so. This petition was heard number of times but as there was some dispute regarding the exact situation of the property, parties were directed to file their affidavits with plans. Petitioner has filed the affidavit and the plan. An affidavit in reply has also been filed on behalf of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. They also agreed to the plan filed by the petitioner. No other plan was produced or submitted by the Delhi Municipal Corporation.
( 2 ) FOR proper appreciation of the factual position it is necessary to quote the said affidavits:
"2. I say that I am the owner of a piece of land measuring 10,000 sq. yards with buildings thereon, situate on the G. T. Road from Delhi to Ghaziabad near the 6th Milestone beyond Shahdara, Delhi. A portion of the aforesaid land and buildings falls within the territory of Uttar Pradesh inasmuch as the superstructures and some vacant land are within the Union Territory of Delhi. The entrance to the same which is an integral part of the aforesaid land and buildings falls within the territory of Uttar Pradesh under the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad, a local body constituted under the Act I say that the point on the G. T. Road in which the entrance to the aforesaid land and buildings merges is beyond the Delhi border and falls within Uttar Pradesh. The said land can be accessible only through the entrance which fall within the limit of U. P. A copy of the layout plan of the area is attached herewith and marked as Annexure a . 3. I say that the aforesaid land is surrounded on two sides i. e. south and west by the territory of Uttar Pradesh and on the other two sides by the Union Territory of Delhi. The north of the aforesaid land is underdeveloped, low-lying and water-logged area and is incapable of being used by the respondent for providing any facilities or services to the aforesaid land. I say that the west of the said land with superstructures thereon is owned by Smt. Maya Devi and others the petitioner in CW 263/72. 4. I say that all the possible services in the aforesaid land including drainage, sewerage, water supply, scavanging, maintenance and sweeping of internal roads, street lighting are being provided by me exclusively at my cost and expense. Even the electric mains have been laid by at my own expense. I have laid, at my own expense, 8 electric poles in order to obtain supply from the electric mains on the G. T. Road. The said amenities are the obligatory functions of the respondent-Corporation which are at present being carried out and performed by me as the property is not accessible to the Corporation. 5. I say that the land and buildings are so situated
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.