Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ajay Aggarwal And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1719 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Three writ petitions, CW 5158/2000, CW 1932/2000 and CW 1935/2000 have been filed by the petitioner-Corporation for three separate assessment years being the assessment years from 1992 to 1995 in resect of property bearing No. 161-J, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.9.1999 being the common order.

2. In terms of the order dated 21.9.1999, both the issue of cost of construction and cot of land have been dealt with. In so far as cost of land is concerned, it has been held that the land rates of L & D O for Lajpat Nagar could not have been taken since the property in question fell in Gautam Nagar on the back of Yusuf Sarai across Ganda Nala and no exercise has been done by the assessing authority for assessing the cost of land by taking primary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not seriously challenge this finding.

3. In so far as cost of construction is concerned taking the CPWD rates as compared to the valuer's report submitted by the petitioner, considerable difference was found of about Rs. 7 lac. The appellate Authority considered two items being cost of compound wall and overhead tank etc. which could not be included in the cost of construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails this finding.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has referred to the definition of 'building' in Section 2(3) of the DMC Act, 1957 which is as under:-

2. Definitions.-

(3) "building" means a house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether or masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter;

5. The aforesaid definition itself shows that boundary wall has been excluding from the definition of the building. Thus I find no infirmity in exclusion of the compound wall from the cost of construction by the Appellate Authority. I am of the considered view that overhead tank cannot be taken as part of cost of construction as it also does not fall within the definition of the 'building' aforesaid.

6. It is relevant to note that Appellate Authority has remanded the matter back for assessment after giving an opportunity to respondent No. 1. It may be noted that though CPWD rates can be one of the indicator of the cost of construction, it is always open to the assessing authority to get independent valuation done specially when thee is wide discrepancy between valuer report submitted by respondent No. 1 and the CPWD. This power conferred under Section 135 of the Act can easily be resorted to.

7. In view of above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and all the three writ petitions are consequently dismissed.