Smt. Kamlesh Arora vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2001 Latest Caselaw 643 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 17.11.1999 and 25.11.1999, by which the mutation of property No.97/109, Nehru Place, New Delhi, was modified to be in the joint names of the petitioner and one Ms.Ruby Arora. The property earlier stood mutated in the name of petitioner alone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition had urged that there was non-compliance with the statutory provision of Section 126 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which reads as under:

126. Amendment of assessment list (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list:-

(a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or

(b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or

(c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or

(d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or

(e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or

(f) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or

(g) by inserting or altering any entry in respect of any building erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after preparation of the assessment list:

Provided that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year (in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given)."

"126(2) Before making any amendment under sub-section (1) the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the requisite notice under Section 126(2) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 had not been issued to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has raised this grievance in the demand of justice made in para 4 of letter dated 6.12.1999.

4. During the course of the writ proceedings an application for impleadment of Ms.Ruby Arora was allowed vide orders dated 21.2.2000. The petitioner was required to file the amended memo of parties and take steps for service. Petitioner despite opportunities failed to take steps to file amended memo of parties or to have Ms.Ruby Arora served.

5. Respondent MCD in the meanwhile, filed the counter affidavit, wherein the stand taken is that the present relief sought to be claimed by the petitioner really falls in the arena of assertion of civil and proprietary rights. It is urged by the counsel, Ms.Amita Gupta that this is an inter se family dispute which is sought to be given the colour of non-compliance of statutory duties. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that the petitioner's late husband, Mr.Narain Das Arora and Mr.Vijay Arora were brothers. The shop had been transferred in the name of the petitioner, who is the widow of Mr.Desh Bandhu Arora and Ms.Ruby Arora, who is the wife of Mr.Vijay Arora brother of Desh Bandhu Arora and Narain Das Arora.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents had duly satisfied themselves with regard to the documentation and also given notice to the parties prior to affecting the change in mutation. She urges that though strictly notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is only required to be given to the person who is sought to be included in assessment list, i.e. prior to fastening any liability for tax. In this case, petitioner's name is already there and only Ruby Arora's name was sought to be added, who had herself applied.

7. Photo copy of the agreement by M/s. Bajaj Industrial Finance Company, the original builder/owner of the shop has been produced. The said agreement carries an endorsement by Mr.Narain Das Arora regarding transfer in favor of the petitioner Smt.Kamlesh Arora and Ms.Ruby Arora.

8. The only surviving point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not issued any notice or given an opportunity to meet the request for change in mutation by Mr.Ruby Arora. I find this position to be belied by the record. Letter dated 5.8.1999 had been addressed to Smt.Kamlesh Arora. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter was not received by the petitioner. Be that as it may, another letter dated 13.10.1999, was copied to Smt.Kamlesh Arora the petitioner. A letter, seeking information had also been addressed to M/s.Bajaj Industrial Finance Company. The petitioner also gave her response to the letter of 13.10.1999 vide a letter dated 24.10.1999 which is on record. MCD has also obtained from the said Smt.Ruby Arora necessary affidavits and indemnity bond etc. prior to mutation.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that this petition is devoid of merit and is not maintainable. It goes without saying that change in mutation in the corporation records for the purposes of property tax and does not confer any title in the property.

In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to her proprietary rights, it would be open for the petitioner to assail the same in proper proceedings on the civil side.

10. The petition has no merit and is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. Let the cost of Rs.5000/- be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar of this court by means of a demand draft in favor of Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Costs have been imposed in this case in view of the non-disclosure of relationship and the plea being taken with regard to non-service of any notice of communication from the MCD, when it has been found on record that there was a response given by the petitioner herself.

Record be returned.