Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sant Singh Chawla
1991 Latest Caselaw 80 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The short question involved is whether the rate of land should be Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard as held by the A.D.J. or not.

(3) In New Rajinder Nagar the Respondent had purchased the land in 1952 at Rs 145.00 per sq. yard. The construction of the house commenced in the year 1965. The question which arose was as to what should the price of the land be in 1965. The Assessing Officer has taken the land price at Rs. 200.00 per sq. yard. The Addl. District Judge in appeal, has set aside the order and has remanded the case to the assessing authority with a direction that the land rate should be taken at Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard. This finding of fact has been arrived at on the basis of Cpwd rates which was stated to be rupees 70.00 in that year Mr. Chandhiok further states that there were other orders of the assessing authority where this land rate of Rs. 70.00 has been applied and accepted. We, however, find that in the impugned order of the Addl. District Judge there is no reference to any error in the assessment orders passed. We further notice that the Addl. District Judge has apparently ignored the fact that the respondent himself had purchased this land 15 years prior to the valuation date. The purchase price of the land could be relevant consideration in determining the market price in 1965.

(4) In our opinion the matter should be remanded to the Addl. District Judge for fresh decision on the question with regard to land rate to be applied. We, therefore, issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the order dated 28th October, 1987 and direct him to re-determine the question with regard to the land rate to be applied. He is at liberty to determine this question of fact himself and remand this question also to the assessing authority. But this can only be done after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard and leading evidence, if necessary. (5) Parties to appear before the A.D.J. for further proceedings on 11th March, 1991. The appeal of the respondent before the A.D.J. stands restored to this limited extent. In the meantime, on the basis of the order which has been set aside by the A.D.J. no recovery shall be made by the petitioner herein from the respondent.