Delhi High Court
Madhu Gupta And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 5 March, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3584-3585/2004
Decided on: 05.03.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
MADHU GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.B. Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Abhay Jain, Advocate
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for
quashing of the assessment order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the
respondent/MCD in respect of the basement of premises bearing No.R-55,
Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, and for directions to the respondent/MCD to
reassess the rateable value of the subject premises in accordance with law.
2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.01.2004 passed by
the Joint Assessor and Collector, MCD shows that the same is a rectification
order passed upon receipt of objections from the petitioners. By virtue of
the impugned order, the rateable value of the subject premises was revised
w.e.f. 28.11.1988 by assessing the same at `1,44,600/- w.e.f. 28.11.1988
(Non-residential), @ `1,66,900/- w.e.f. 01.12.1988 (Non-residential) and
`1,57,600/- w.e.f. 01.04.1994 (Non-residential) and onwards.
3. Counsel for the respondent/MCD states that the petitioners
ought not to have directly approached the High Court by filing the present
writ petition as an equally efficacious alternate remedy of appeal was
available to them in law, particularly when disputed questions of facts have
been raised in the present case. She further submits that the petitioners
have not placed on record any document to show as to how they have
invoked the principles of parity to claim assessment of the subject premises
on the basis of the old rateable value of the subject premises on a
proportionate basis.
4. To examine the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the
respondent/MCD, the Court has perused the averments made by the
petitioners in the writ petition as also the documents placed on record by
them. In the body of the writ petition, except for reiterating the submissions
made in the objections raised by the petitioners before the MCD that they
are entitled to the benefit of rationalization and reduction of the rateable
value on the application of principles of parity, which has not been granted
to them, there is not a whisper in the writ petition as to the nature of
documents placed by the petitioners before the assessing authority to
establish as to what was the old rateable value of the subject premises,
which had been demolished, whereafter a new structure came to be raised
on the subject land that included a basement.
5. Counsel for the petitioners concedes that though no such
averment has been made in the writ petition, during the pendency of the
present proceedings, the petitioners had submitted a letter dated
03.05.2006 to the respondent/MCD, which disclosed the details of properties
similar to that of the petitioners', to justify a moderation of the rateable
value of the subject premises.
6. A perusal of the order-sheets shows that vide order dated
19.04.2006, the petitioners were granted final opportunity of two weeks to
forward the relevant details to the respondent/MCD and further, they were
directed to appear before the Joint Assessor and Collector on 26.05.2006. It
is stated that on the date fixed by this Court, the petitioners were
represented through counsel, before the assessing authority but no further
proceedings had taken place thereafter.
7. Fact of the matter is that the petitioners have not placed on
record any document, much less the letter dated 03.05.2006 stated to have
been submitted by them to the MCD that discloses any details or material
particulars of the previously existing construction to claim reduction in the
rateable value. In the absence of such documents/informations, the
petitioners cannot call upon this Court to hold a fact finding enquiry to
establish as to whether they can claim parity for the purpose of assessment
of the rateable value of the subject premises. The said position was also
noticed on 19.04.2006 when the petitioners were afforded an opportunity to
approach the Joint Assessor and Collector, MCD with the relevant details.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with
liberty granted to the petitioners to assail the impugned order before the
Municipal Taxation Tribunal by filing an appeal, as may be permissible in
law. Needless to state that while filing the appeal, the petitioners shall be at
liberty to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to explain the
delay in approaching the said forum, which plea shall be duly taken into
consideration by the Tribunal while considering the maintainability of the
appeal.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 05, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
