Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.

1. This matter has been remitted by the Supreme Court for recording finding on the following two questions:

(i) Whether the erection of storage tanks on the lands in question amounts to erection of a building which is taxable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act?

(ii) If the answer to question (i) above is in the affirmative, whether those storage tanks and other structures raised on the lands in question are exempted as plant and machinery under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act?

(Signer's identity unknown) Signed by Naresh Mehta Time: 2009.03.28 10:09:52 +05'30' Reason: Location:

2. Before adverting to the questions involved, we may notice the basic facts of the matter. The respondent had been granted separate and distinct licenses by the President of India acting through Superintendent of Northern Railway Delhi for the purpose of maintaining depot for storage of petroleum products at a yearly license fee of Rs. 20640/- and Rs. 31000/- per annum respectively.

3. The properties in question were assessed at a rateable value which was sought to be increased. Objections were filed by the respondent. A contention was raised that the storage tanks would not come within the purview of the definition of 'building' as provided in Section 2(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short "the Act") and thus no tax would be leviable as provided under Section 114 of the Act. The proposal of enhancement of rateable value was confirmed with effect from 1.4.1978.

4. Being aggrieved the respondent filed House Tax Appeal Nos. 590 to 596/1984 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the appeals, the following questions were raised.

(a) Whether such steel structure are within the meaning of Delhi Corporation Act or not?

buildings Municipal

(b) Whether such structures can be termed as a land within the meaning of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or not?

5. Relying on a judgment of the Bombay High Court titled Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in (1974) 77 Bom LR 314, it was held that such structures are not building within the meaning of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Additional District Judge also came to the conclusion that the respondent is not a person primarily responsible for payment of property tax within the meaning of Section 120 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and thus the orders of assessment impugned before him were held to be not sustainable. The appeals preferred by the respondent were, therefore, allowed by the learned Additional District Judge.

6. Questioning the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Civil Writ Nos. 86/1986, 179/1986, 180/1986, 181/1986, 182/1986, 183/1986, 274/1986 were filed by the appellant which were disposed of by Mahinder Narain, J (as the learned Judge then was). The learned Judge held that oil storage tanks would not be a building within the meaning of "building" under the Act. The learned Judge further held that as the instrument had been executed on behalf of the President of India, which is termed to be a licence, Section 120(1)(c) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act would not be attracted in relation thereto.

7. The appellant – Corporation challenged the decision of the single Judge by preferring LPA Nos. 52-58/1987. A Division Bench of this Court noticing the difference in opinion in two Division Bench judgments of this Court referred the matter to the Full Bench in terms of order dated 12.2.2000 which reads as under

These are nine Letters Patent Appeals directed against the judgment of learned Single Judges of this Court. LPAs 52 to 58/87 (MCD v. Pradeep Oil Mills) are directed against the judgment of Mahinder Narain, J. dated 5.8.1996 while LPAs 227 to 228/96 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. MCD) are directed against the judgment of Mohd. Shamim, J. dated 11.9.1996. It has been brought to our notice that the judgment in Pradeep Oil Mills' case has been affirmed by a Di