Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs National Research Development ...
1988 Latest Caselaw 21 Del

JUDGMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.

(1) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for challenging certain directions given in the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 9th September, 1985 whereby learned Additional District Judge quashed the assessment order dated 14th September, 1984 enhancing ratable value partly with effect from 14th June, 1979 and again revising it from 30th November, 1981.

(2) Learned Additional District Judge basically set aside the assessment order on the ground that it contains no reasons. While passing the impugned order quashing assessment order dared 14th September, 1984, learned Additional District Judge also directed that while passing the assessment order again the assessing authority will not take into account cost of the machinery,

(3) The assesses had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 741/ 86 challenging bill dated 17th September, 1985 which had been issued in spite of the appellate order dated 9th September, 1985. That writ petition was decided by 'Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3rd September, 1987 wherein the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi 'had agreed that the assessing authority will assess the property in the light of the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 9th September, 1985 mentioned earlier. However, this order was made subject to the decision, if any, in the present writ petition.

(4) Submission of learned counsel for the Corporation, Mr. Lao is that the observations of the learned Additional District Judge that assessing authority shall not take into account the cost of the machinery while fixing rateable value are not in accordance with law. He submits that the decision which has been relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge reported as Bansi Dhar Vs. Ndmc DLT(10) 1974 page 176(1), is not applicable since the word "appurtenance" which appear in Section 3 clause (b) of the Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911) does not appear in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

(5) Property taxes are leviable under Section 114(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The property taxes are payable on land and building. One of the basis adopted for fixing rateable value is on the basis of value of the land and cost of construction of the building. It is a certain percentage thereof, as provided in the Delhi Rent Control Act, which has to be taken into account while fixing rateable value of the land and building. Since the Supreme Court has taken the view that rateable value in Delhi of land and building cannot be higher than the standard rent thereof, for finding out the value of land and building, it will be useful to see the definition thereof given in Section 2(24) and (3) respectively of the Act. The term land' is defined as under :- "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by law over any street; The term 'building' is defined as under:- "building" means a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter;

(6) It will be noticed that "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; whereas "building" is defined as meaning which has been noticed earlier. The question which is involved in the writ petition is whether the value of machinery like 'lift' provided in the building can be taken into account while computing market value of land or building for finding out rateable value for purposes of Section 114. of the Act. It is clear that the term 'building' does not include the lift' which has been provided in the building. Mr. Lao, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submits that lift' will come within the meaning of expression land'. It is submitted that these are benefits arising out of land or things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.

(7) It will be noticed that in the earlier years the market value of land was assessed as bare land which did not include anything like things attached to the earth or benefits arising out of land for computing rateable value. The question raised is, whether lift' which is fixed in the building can be said to be benefit arising out of land or things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. So far as expression, "benefits arising out of land" is concerned, it cannot be stated to include a machinery installed on land. That expression relates to crops etc. The only other expression on which reliance is placed , "things attached to the earth". A "lift' does operate in the building but it is not something which can be called "things attached to earth".

(8) Again the expressions like "things attached to earth" refers to trees and bushes. The lift' is machinery which basically operates in the well of the lift and is not treated as a machinery attached to earth. In any case machines like lifts' are not attached to earth. Thev. in fact, operate in the part of the building called "well" of the lift.

(9) A building also has separate provision for stair-case and fixing of 'lift' is an additional amenity provided in the building and cannot be called "things attached to the earth". It is true that there is a difference in the meaning of the words as given in Punjab Municipal Act. But a machinery, if fixed, is not contemplated as being assessable for the purposes of property taxes. Property taxes are fixed on properties like land or build-ing. They are not fixed on installation or amenities provided therein. Take a case of Air-conditioning plant attached to the building. Surely, the value of the air-conditioning plant, though it is fixed iii the building, cannot be taken into account for purposes of finding out market value of land and/or building for ascertaining rateable value. In the same way provision of 'liff cannot be taken into account while fixing rateable value of land and building. There is thus no merit In the writ petition, same is dismissed. No order as to costs.