Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Atul Y. Chitala And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1351 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Petitioner-Corporation has impugned the decision of the learned ADJ acting as Appellate Authority in terms whereof the impugned order of assessment was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction to assess afresh flat in question for purposes of house tax after issuance of notice to the appellant as required in the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2. In the writ petition additional ground of challenge of the petition is that notice under Section 126 of the said Act had served on the recorded owner of the land in question being Supreme Co-operative Group Housing Society and that the honorary Secretary of the petitioner had not disclosed the list of the allottees with complete addresses and details.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in controversy relating to similarly situated persons in respect of the same Society stands settled by a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in CR No. 1237/1997, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain decided on 22.7.2002.

4. In the said judgment while dealing with the issue of notice reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MDC v. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 62 (1996) Delhi Law Times 222 (SC) wherein it was held as under:

"The Act does not contemplate the Corporation going about enquiring whether and when a particular land/building is transferred to whom? Any notices required to be issued by the Corporation can validly issued to the transferor until he intimates the Corporation of the transfer and it would be a valid and sufficient service in law; the transferee cannot contend that since he has not bee served with the relevant notice, the 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 in 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 defeated by the non-intimation under Section 128 or by the failure of the transferee to have his name entered in the Municipal records."

5. In the said case of CR 1237/97 also the learned counsel for the Corporation has stated that she had no objection in case the petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard but no fresh notice is required. Learned single Judge considered this aspect and observed as under while dealing with the Section 132 of the said Act.

"The proviso of Section 132 is important. There is no dispute in between the parties that the entire complex of the Supreme Co-operative Group Housing Society was treated as one property. The house tax was assessed accordingly. There is also no dispute about the fact that the property was subsequently passed by 'by transfer, succession or any other manner' to more than 300 persons and divided the entire construction into simplex and duplex flat, thus in several parts. They occupied them in severalty, treated each such several part as a separate property. The Commissioner may certainly assess such parts of property to taxes accordingly. But this Provision definitely implies the principle of natural justice, of being heard whenever the Commissioner decides to assess the property separately. Section 132 does not require that a fresh notice should be sent, but certainly requires that in such a case, the person concerned should be heard before finalising the assessment."

6. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that matter in controversy in the present petition is identical, I am of the considered view that same direction is liable to be issued. I am thus of the considered view that the respondent should be given an opportunity of being heard before finalising the assessment. It is thus directed that a date be fixed by the Deputy Assessor and Collector for hearing of respondent No. 1 and intimation be sent to the respondent No. 1 of the said date of hearing. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.