Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Express Newspapers Ltd.
1987 Latest Caselaw 403 Del

JUDGMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.

(1) This order will dispose of L.P.A., Nos. 78 to 83 of 1987.

(2) These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30th January, 1987. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions.

(3) The land in dispute was purchased by the respondent by way of a lease-deed as far back as 17th March, 1958 and certain premium was paid. Building was constructed on the said plot of land. The construction started in the year 1958 and the total cost of construction was Rs. 31,78,945.47 ps. (excluding the cost of land). The building, as constructed, was assessed to property taxes and writ petitions were filed by the owner of the property relating to the old construction.

(4) The appellants are not challenging any of the observations of the learned Single Judge qua the old construction.

(5) The appellants are only canvassing the points urged by them before the Single Judge viz-a-viz the new (additional) construction. Viz-a-viz new (additional) constructions, two points were urged before the Single Judge. The first point related to the date from which the property will be liable to payment of house-tax. The second point was what should be the basis of determination of rateable value of the additional construction.

(6) So far as the first point is concerned, no arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, to challenge the finding of the learned Single Judge. The only point argued is whether the additional construction which is on a separate portion of land should be considered as an additional construction or new construction. The point urged for the proposition is that if certain vacant areas of the erstwhile plot of land on which the old construction exists is utilised for construction the cost of land to the cost of construction should be added for determining the rateable value. The Supreme Court of India in Dr. Balbir Singh & others vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & others: held at page 475 of the reports as under:- "THE market price of the land cannot be added twice over, once while determining the standard rent of the original structure and again while determining the standard rent of the additional structure. Once the addition is made, the formula set out in sub-section (1)(A) (2)(b) and 1 (B) (2)(b) of Section 6 can be applied only in relation to the premises as a whole and where the additional structure consists of a distinct and separate unit of occupation, the standard rent would have to be apportioned in the manner indicated by us in the earlier part of this judgment."

(7) It was clear from the aforesaid decision of Dr. Balbir Singh's case that cost of land once considered while assessing the old construction should not be taken into consideration once again while considering the additional construction on the same land later on. Inspite of this clear position the Municipal Corporation kept on taken into construction the cost of land twice over for additional construction, in many cases and in most of the cases which came to our notice this position was taken up on the excuse that Municipal Corporation has applied for clarification of the order in Dr. Balbir Singh's case. The application for clarification of judgment in Dr. Balbir Singh's case came up before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in C.P.M. No. 18280 of 1987. The Court held that the Supreme Court has categorically decided that the market value of land is not to be added over again. There is no ambiguity which requires clarification and the Supreme Court decline to make any clarificatory order as there was no necessity.

(8) Mr. Nandrajog submits that Dr. Balbir Singh's case is not applicable because it is not an additional construction by way of making another storey on the old construction. To our mind that makes no difference so far as the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court is concerned because the additional construction is on the land whose cost has already been taken into account while calculating rateable value for the old construction.

(9) Mr. Nandrajog then vehmently attempted to argue that when the permission was granted for making additional construction the price of land was revised by way of additional premium and that additional premium should be included.

(10) First this point does not appear to have been taken in the counter-affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge nor it was so argued. Therefore, a disputed question of fact which was not taken/urged before the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in these Letters Patent Appeals.

(11) With these remarks the show cause notice is discharged. The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs of the present appeals.