$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15^th April, 2026 + W.P.(C) 2963/2023, CM APPL. 11554/2023 & CM APPL.

23139/2024 BUNNINDER DEEP SINGH FALAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya N. Prasad, Mr. Piyush Sharma and Mr. Pratyush Jain, Advocates versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC with Mr.

Soumit Ganguli and Mr. Akash Sharma, Advs. for NDMC CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Since 14^th April, 2026 was declared a Court holiday, the matters listed on 14^th April, 2026 are being taken up today, i.e. 15^th April, 2026.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 20^th September, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in HTA 78/2017, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘NDMC Act’).

3. The aforesaid appeal was filed assailing the assessment order dated 6^th December, 2016. In terms of the said assessment order, the late mother of the petitioner had been directed to pay property tax to the tune of Rs. 14,58,285/- in respect of Flat/property located at C-5 Marble Arch, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi (hereinafter the ‘subject property’).

4. A notice dated 19^th February, 2004 under Section 72 of the NDMC Act was issued by the respondent/NDMC to the late mother of the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner’s mother vide letter dated 16^th March, 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondent/NDMC.

5. In February 2017, the petitioner came to know that an assessment order has been passed by the respondent/NDMC on 6^th December, 2016 and a demand of Rs. 14,58,285/- was raised.

6. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2839 of 2017 assailing the order dated 6^th December, 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 12^th May, 2017 and the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 115 of the NDMC Act.

7. Accordingly, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 21^st July, 2017, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgement on the ground that the impugned assessment order has been passed after taking into consideration all the objections raised by the appellant/petitioner. Further, the contention of the petitioner that there was time gap between the issuance of notice under Section 72 of the NDMC Act and passing of impugned assessment order, was not accepted as the NDMC Act does not prescribe any period of limitation to act upon such notice and revision of rateable value.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

9. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Ved Marwah v. New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8096.

10. In Ved Marwah (supra), the notices under Section 72 of the NDMC Act were issued as far back as 11^th February, 2002 and the assessment order was passed on 31^st October, 2017. The contention of the petitioner in Ved Marwah (supra) was noted in paragraph 5 of the judgment, which is set out below:

“5. All the petitioners complain that the completion of assessment proceeding or the revision of the assessment lists, after an inordinate period renders the exercise of power unreasonable. It is urged that the assessing officers do not have the power to adjudicate upon issues that are in fact stale or conclude proceedings after an inordinate delay in such a way as to result in manifold liability on the part of the property owners which they would be unprepared to bear. According to the petitioners, the assessments pursuant to any given notice - either proposing a first-time assessment of any property or revision of the existing rateable value is to be completed within a reasonable period of not more than 3 years failing which the NDMC ceases to have any power to adjudicate upon such no