Mcd vs Dr. Dev Kumar
2009 Latest Caselaw 604 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) 7001/2009 and CMs 2411/09 & 2412/09

                                                Date of decision : 19.02.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :

#MCD                                                       ......  Petitioner
!                                 Through :     Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate
                    versus

$ DR. DEV KUMAR                                               .....   Respondent
^                                 Through :     None.


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
        Judgment?       No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?         No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?               No.


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/MCD against

the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal,

Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the

respondent/assessee, being aggrieved with the assessment order of the

W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 1 of

Deputy Assessor & Collector, Rohini Zone, dated 18.12.2007 in respect of

the property bearing No. B-33, New Multan Nagar, Delhi, filed an appeal

before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi challenging the assessment

order on the ground that the ratable value was fixed on the old method of

assessment, which was not permissible. The said contention of the assessee

was accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is

liable to be set aside as the Tribunal overlooked the fact that this was a case

where vide order dated 15.02.2006, the learned ADJ had directed the

assessing authority to reassess the property by quashing the earlier

assessment orders dated 03.01.2005 and 30.03.1999. He submits that at

the time of passing of the aforesaid order, it was neither clarified by the

learned ADJ that the reassessment should be done as per UAM method or

for that matter, even the assessee did not make any such request. He

states that in these circumstances, the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by

the Deputy Assessor & Collector, Rohini Zone did not suffer from any

infirmity and ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal on the

ground that the UAM had not been applied for assessing the property tax.

4. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner was duly taken into

W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 2 of

consideration by the Tribunal and dealt with at length. In para-10 of the

impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that the plea of the MCD that

UAM could not have been applied for reassessing the property tax on

account of the fact that the assessment was not pending on

01.08.2003/01.04.2004, could not be accepted for the reason that the MCD

had, by its own circular dated 18.03.2004, duly ratified vide Resolution No.

226 dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Standing Committee of the

Corporation, permitted application of UAM method. Furthermore, the

Tribunal observed that the petitioner/MCD, having passed the assessment

order dated 28.07.2006 on the basis of UAM, could not have passed a

subsequent order dated 18.12.2007, basing the assessment on the old

method.

5. In this regard, the original records have been produced by the

counsel for the petitioner and duly perused. Vide letter dated 16.06.2006

addressed by the respondent/assessee to the petitioner, the assessee

specifically requested the authority to decide his case under the UAM. The

said request of the assessee was duly acceded to by the petitioner/MCD and

as per the assessment order, the UAM method was therefore applied to the

property in question. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in

holding that once the request for application of UAM was received from the

W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 3 of

assessee and was granted by the petitioner, whereafter an assessment order

was passed, there was no justification for the assessing authority to have

suo motto passed yet another assessment order dated 18.12.2007 while

refusing to apply the UAM method, but reverting to the old method of

assessment.

5. The provisions of section 116(G)(2) of the amended Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 do not come to the aid of the petitioner in

the present case, when the assessing authority had itself, after the case was

remanded to it, followed the UAM and directed the assessment to be made

on the said basis. In the absence of any request by the

respondent/assessee to review the said assessment order, the assessing

authority could not have reviewed the same unilaterally, and under the garb

of the said review, recall the earlier order of reassessment carried out under

the UAM dated 16.06.2006 and make a fresh assessment under the old

method, contrary to the request of the respondent/assessee.

6. There appears no illegality, infirmity or arbitrariness in the

impugned order, which deserves interference in writ jurisdiction. For the

aforesaid reasons, the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Municipal

Taxation Tribunal is maintained. The present writ petition is dismissed

W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 4 of

alongwith the pending applications.

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

                                                  HIMA KOHLI,J
       FEBRUARY 19, 2009
       rkb




W.P.(C) 7001/2009                                         Page 5 of