Shri R.P. Jain And Another vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1129 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

Rule.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 7th December, 2000, passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector confirming the rateable value of petitioners' Farm House admeasuring 17.60 Bighas at village Holambi Kalan, New Delhi at Rs.9,38,4000/-. This was pursuant to a notice issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, proposing the aforesaid rateable value with effect from 1.4.1997. It may be noticed that the petitioners' predecessors-in-title stated to have obtained sanction of building plans, raised and completed construction.

2. The present controversy is a short one and revolves around whether the respondents could have confirmed the rateable value simply on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the valuation report or the details of construction etc. Petitioner No.1 received a notice dated 12.9.2000, from respondent No.2 purporting to be under Section 124(5) of the DMC Act, requiring the petitioner to appear on 20.9.2000 at 11.15A.M. The petitioner sought adjournment as he was out of station. The matter was adjourned to 3.10.2000. The petitioner claims to have appeared through her representative and the case was adjourned to 12.10.2000. The petitioner appeared on 12.10.2000 and enclosed a copy of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner also requested for supply of copies of the notices and order which, would show the arbitrary manner in which the respondents had been fixing the rateable value. Petitioner No.1 was neither supplied copies of the notices and orders nor was he informed of any further date of hearing. The petitioners came to Court, as they apprehended that the order would be passed to their prejudice arbitrarily.

3. The record has been perused. It cannot be said that there was no material or particulars available based on which the respondents could not compute the rateable value. The impugned order which simply confirms the proposed rateable value is not sustainable.

4. In this regard, the Assessing Officers shall do well to keep in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr.Balbir Singh vs. MCD and others , and in Lt.Col. P.R.Chaudhry (Retd) etc. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another vol.85(2000) DLT 223. Attention is drawn to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Dr.Balbir Singh vs. MCD and others (supra) "While dealing with cases, Where MCD had declined to assess the rateable value of properties on the basis of standard rent on the ground that the assesseds had failed to produce documentary evidence of aggregate amount of reasonable cost of construction and market value of land on the date of commencement of construction. In case, the assesseds failed to produce the reasonable cost of construction of the premises or market value of land, comprised int he premises, the Assessing Authorities could arrive at their own estimate but resort could not be had to Section 9(4) of the DRC Act."

5. Merely, because the owner does not produce satisfactory evidence showing what was the reasonable cost of construction or the market price of land at the time of commencement of construction, it cannot be said that it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in sub-section (1)A (2)b or sub-Section (1)B (2)b of Section 6 of DRC Act. The assessing authorities would obviously have to estimate themselves on the basis of such material, as may be gathered by them.

6. Reference may also be usefully made to Lt.Col.P.R.Chaudhary (retd.) etc. (supra) as under :

"In all revenue matters, there is no adversary system. Assessment records of the rateable value of the premises int he locality are certainly available in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It has a filed staff on the reports of which notice for enhancement of the rateable value are issued. Assessing Authority hears the objections to the fixation of rateable value and acts in quasi-judicial capacity. Its orders are appealable. It cannot act in an arbitrary fashion ignoring principles of law laid by the Court. It cannot fall back on the specious plea that it has no means to act on the principles of law by this Court. Even notice for enhancement of reateable value has to be based on reasons which must exist on record and the owner is entitled to be apprised of those reasons. High Court lent its support tot he plea of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is contrary to the principles laid by this Court."

The Assessing Authorities are required to act in accordance with the principles enumerated int he above judicial pronouncements.

7. It may be noted that in a number of cases, ex parte orders of assessments are being passed rather mechanically. The concerned Officers making the assessment, must take care that even in cases of ex parte assessment, the reason and basis of arriving at the rateable value are spelt out. Instructions in this regard may be issued by the Assessor and Collector to the concerned officers. It is imperative that the Assessing Officer applies his mind and discharges his statutory duty by making an assessment on the basis of available material with the Department and such other information, as may be gathered to make the assessment on merits, even in ex parte cases.

8. As noticed earlier, in this also the Assessing Authority has failed to discharge its statutory obligations of determining the rateable value on the basis of material and information, which was available or could be gathered and has simply confirmed the proposed rateable value in an ex parte order. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioners shall appear on 10.9.2001 at 2PM in the office of the Joint Assessor and Collector, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. Within three weeks from today, Joint Assessor and Collector shall notify the assessed, the documents and any information which is required from the assessed.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.