Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs S. Surinder Pal Singh
1997 Latest Caselaw 975 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. This judgment proposes to dispose of the writ petition Nos. 1107/86, 1108/86, 1109/86, 1110/86, 1111/86, 1112/86 also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to be common order dated 23-12-85 passed by the Additional District Judge, who while accepting the appeals of the respondents has set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authorities for the year 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-1981, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 in respect of the property No.CC.-50 Naryana Industrial Area, Community Centre, New Delhi.

2. It appears that the property bearing No.CC-50 Narayana Industrial Area-II, Delhi was previously assessed at ratable value of Rs.1,72,800/-. An area of 8807.25 sq.ft. of the said property was let out to M/s. G.M. Satellite Projects (Indian Posts & Telegraphs Department) at a monthly rent of Rs.29,99.65. Consequently a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the owner of the property namely M/s Star Properties proposing enhancement of the ratable value at Rs.3,23,400/-. In response to the said notice, the respondent No.1, Surender Pal submitted objections (Annexure C) against the proposed enhancement of ratable value, which were rejected by the Assessing Authority and vide orders dated 19-2-85. By the said order, Assessing Authority revised the ratable value to Rs.3,23,400/- as proposed. In appeal by the respondents, the learned A.D.J. set aside the assessment orders on the sole ground that all co-owners of the said property were not noticed under Section 126(2) of the DMC Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that M/s. Star Properties is the recorded owner of the property in question. The notice (Annexure B) was issued to the M/s. Star Properties and the same was accepted by respondent No.1 on behalf of the M/s. Star Properties. learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the objections (Annexure C) filed by the respondent No.1. It is pertinent that no objection was raised before the Assessing Authority with regard to the joint ownership of the said property. There is nothing on the record to show or suggest that the respondents ever gave any notice under Section 128 of the DMC Act to the competent authority to have their names entered in the Municipal records in respect of the said property. Section 128 of the Act contemplates that whenever a land or building is transferred, the transferor is bound to give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner. If the transfer is effected by a registered document, such notice has to be given within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after registration or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument is executed. Failure to give such notice renders the transferor liable not only to penalty but also to payment of all property taxes from time to time payable in respect of such land or building until he gives such notice. Reference may, in this connection, be made to the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in MCD Vs. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 62(1996) DLT 222:-

"It is equally necessary to clarify that the Act places the obligation upon the transferor to intimate the Corporation of any transfer and also provides for the consequence flowing from failure to inform. The Act does not contemplate the Corporation going about enquiling whether and when is particular land/building is transferred to whom? Any notices required to be issued by the Corporation can be validly issued to the transferor until he intimates the Corporation Corporation of the transfer and it would be a valid and sufficient service in law; the transferee cannot contend that since he has not been served with the relevant notice, then assessment made or any other action taken is bad in law. If he takes a transfer from a particular person, it is his duty to ensure that the transferor sends the intimation contemplated by Section 128(1) and his (transferee's) name is recorded as the owner in the place of the transferor. Unless the transferee's name is recorded as the "owner" or as the person primarily liable, the Municipality cannot be found fault with for not sending relevant notices to the transferee. The substantive liability of the "owner" to pay taxes cannot be defeated by the non-intimation under Section 128 or by the failure of the transferee to have his name entered in the Municipal records."

4. In the instant case, it is beyond the pale of controversy that the property in question was not mutated in the name of the respondents 1 to 7. On the contrary, the respondent No.8 was the recorded owner of the said property. In these circumstances, it was not incumbent upon the petitioner to send notices under Section 126 to all the respondents. In my opinion, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge has committed a patent illegality in setting aside the assessment orders for non-sending notices under Section 126 of the DMC Act to the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order of the Addl. Distt. Judge are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Addl. Distt. Judge for disposal of the appeals according to law and the light of the position of law explained here-inabove. There shall be no order as to costs.