Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs S.P. Talwar & Anr.
1997 Latest Caselaw 962 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. This judgment process to dispose of civil writ petition Nos.629/90,2862/89, 2863/89, 2864/89 also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order of the Additional District Judge, who, while accepting the appeals of the respondents, has inter alia, fixed the rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land and Development Officer for Jhilmil Colony. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix rateable value of the premises in question without their being a proper material on record.

The question involved in this case is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determing the ratable value. It is now well settled that the ratable value has to be fixed keeping in view the standard rent which has to be determined on the basis of the cost of land in the year in which the construction commenced (DR. Balbir Singh Vs. M.C.D. ). Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 lays down principles for determination of standard rent in relation to any premises. Section 6 covers a variety of premises laying down principles for determining the standard rent in respect of each of the kinds of premises covered thereunder. On a perusal of the impugned judgment it appears, that the learned Additional District Judge had determined the rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of schedule rates prescribed by Land and Development Officer for Jhilmil colony. In my opinion the view taken by the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in law as it has been held by various Division Bench of this Court in MCD Vs. C.P.Gosain CWP 4122/90 decided on 24th October, 1991, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N.C.Jain & Anr. CW 1312/90 decided on 24.7.91: MCD Vs. Jasvinder Singh & Anr. CWP 4096/91 decided on 17th May, 1993 and MCD Vs. K.P.Gupta CW 438/88 decided on 26th April, 1990 that the scheduled rates prescribed by Land and Development Officer alone can not form the basis for determining the market price of the land although they are relevant piece of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority along with other evidence which the party may produce before the Assessing Authority. In M.C.Jain (supra) it was observed that the Assessing Authority should try and ascertain as to the market rate of the land on the basis of sale deed, auction price etc. near about time when the construction commenced in the immediate or near vicinity of the land whether it is situated. Unfortunately, neither in the assessment order, nor in the appellate order is there any reference to any actual sale which took place near about in time when the construction commenced. Since the matter involved the production of evidence and determination of disputed questions of facts, these questions cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction. However, the parties shall be free to adduce such evidence before the Assessing Authority for determining the market price of the land in question.

2. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned assessment orders and the judgments passed by the Additional District Judge in HTA 98/87, 278/86, 279/86, 282/86 and 283/86 are hereby set aside. The Assessing Authority is directed to redetermine the rateable value of the premises in question in accordance with law. It will be open to the parties to lead such evidence with regard to price of lands as may be available to them in accordance with law. No orders as to costs.