* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3584-3585/2004
Decided on: 05.03.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
MADHU GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.B. Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Abhay Jain, Advocate
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of the assessment order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the respondent/MCD in respect of the basement of premises bearing No.R-55, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, and for directions to the respondent/MCD to reassess the rateable value of the subject premises in accordance with law.
2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector, MCD shows that the same is a rectification order passed upon receipt of objections from the petitioners. By virtue of the impugned order, the rateable value of the subject premises was revised w.e.f. 28.11.1988 by assessing the same at `1,44,600/- w.e.f. 28.11.1988 W.P.(C) 3584-85/2004 Page 1 of 4 (Non-residential), @ `1,66,900/- w.e.f. 01.12.1988 (Non-residential) and `1,57,600/- w.e.f. 01.04.1994 (Non-residential) and onwards.
3. Counsel for the respondent/MCD states that the petitioners ought not to have directly approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition as an equally efficacious alternate remedy of appeal was available to them in law, particularly when disputed questions of facts have been raised in the present case. She further submits that the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show as to how they have invoked the principles of parity to claim assessment of the subject premises on the basis of the old rateable value of the subject premises on a proportionate basis.
4. To examine the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the respondent/MCD, the Court has perused the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition as also the documents placed on record by them. In the body of the writ petition, except for reiterating the submissions made in the objections raised by the petitioners before the MCD that they are entitled to the benefit of rationalization and reduction of the rateable value on the application of principles of parity, which has not been granted to them, there is not a whisper in the writ petition as to the nature of documents placed by the petitioners before the assessing authority to W.P.(C) 3584-85/2004 Page 2 of 4 establish as to what was the old rateable value of the subject premises, which had been demolished, whereafter a new structure came to be raised on the subject land that included a basement.
5. Counsel for the petitioners concedes that though no such averment has been made in the writ petition, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioners had submitted a letter dated 03.05.2006 to the respondent/MCD, which disclosed the details of properties similar to that of the petitioners', to justify a moderation of the rateable value of the subject premises.
6. A perusal of the order-sheets shows that vide order dated 19.04.2006, the petitioners were granted final opportunity of two weeks to forward the relevant details to the respondent/MCD and further, they were directed to appear before the Joint Assessor and Collector on 26.05.2006. It is stated that on the date fixed by this Court, the petitioners were represented through counsel, before the assessing authority but no further proceedings had taken place thereafter.
7. Fact of the matter is that the petitioners have not placed on record any document, much less the letter dated 03.05.2006 stated to have been submitted by them to the MCD that discloses any details or material W.P.(C) 3584-85/2004 Page 3 of 4 particulars of the previously existing construction to claim reduction in the rateable value. In the absence of such documents/informations, the petitioners cannot call upon this Court to hold a fact finding enquiry to establish as to whether they can claim parity for the purpose of assessment of the rateable value of the subject premises. The said position was also noticed on 19.04.2006 when the petitioners were afforded an opportunity to approach the Joint Assessor and Collector, MCD with the relevant details.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to assail the impugned order before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal by filing an appeal, as may be permissible in law. Needless to state that while filing the appeal, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to explain the delay in approaching the said forum, which plea shall be duly taken into consideration by the Tribunal while considering the maintainability of the appeal.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 05, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
W.P.(C) 3584-85/2004 Page 4 of 4