Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs S.N. Pandit And Anr.
1997 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

(1) This judgment proposes to disposes of Civil Writ Petition 1155/89 (MCD v. S.S. Pandit) also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who while accepting 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 & Development Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 on the basis of schedule rates of L & D.O. only.

(2) The question involved in these cases is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determining the rateable value. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., . Rateable value has to be fixed keeping in view of the standard rent which is determined on the basis of the cost of land in the year in which the construction commenced. 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 rules for determining the standard rent in respect of each of the kinds of premises covered thereunder.

(3) In the present case it will be relevant to point out that learned Additional District Judge has determined the market price of land in Chittranjan Park area by adopting the schedule rates of L & D.O. and thereby ignored the basic principles that the market price or value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (Ranghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor,AIR 1967 Sc 465).It is relevant to point out that the schedule rates prescribed by the Land and Development Officer may at best be a piece of evidence in determining the market rate on an particular date. It is possible that there may be other relevant evidence which may be available on the record to indicate the correct market value of the land on the date the construction commenced. Consequently, the rate prescribed by the Land and Development Officer alone cannot form basis for determining the market price of the land. Reference may, in this connection, be made to the decisions in Municipal Corporation of Dalhi v. C.P.Gosain, C.W.P. No. 4122/90 decided on 24th October, ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. N.C. Jain 6- Anr., Cw 1312/90 decided on 24.7.1991; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jasvinder Singh & Anr., Cwp No. 4096/91 decided on 17.5.1993; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. K.P. Gupta, C.W.P. No. 438/1988 decided on 26.4.1990. It is, therefore, apparent that neither the schedule rates of Land & Development Officer, nor auction rates themselves alone can form the basis for determining the market price of lands in question although both are the relevant pieces of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority alongwith other evidence which the parties may produce before the Assessing Authority. 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 property in question.

(4) For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned assessment orders and the judgments are hereby set aside.The Assessor & Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to re-determine the Rateable value in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra). 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.