Ram Lal Kaushalya Devi Trust v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 06, 2017/ndn PllSiC I ol" i •sN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHJ AT NEW DELHI ^ -hidgmentreservedon : 02.3.2017 Judgment delivered on : 06.3.2017 •1: W.P.(C) 5087/2014.and C.M.No. 10152/2014 NALIN BHUSHANCHANDIOK& ANR ...... Petitioners Through Mr.R.P.Sharma,Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Advocates. vei'SLis NORTH DELHI MUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent ' IhroLigh Ms.GeetaMaIhotra.Advocate. VV.P.(C)5088/2014.&C.M. No.10154/2014 - , •- RAM LAL K.A USHALYADEVI TRUST ....; Petitioner rhrougli Mr.-R.P.Shanria,Mr. Vaibhav MeJira,, Advocates. versus NORiH DELHI MUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent rhrougli Ms.GeetaMailiotra,Advocate. W.P.(C)5538/2014& C.M. NoJ3753/2014 • KANTA CHANDHIOK ....UUtitioner. H-irough Mr.R.P.Sharma,Mr. ^.CnbhcO' Mehra. Advocates. versus north DELHI MUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent 1hroLigh Ms.GeetaMehrotra.Advocate. :U,;,.5i)S7.';!()|.!.saxSUOM 55S8/;?0.M CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR. J. n There are three petitioners before this Court. They all are aggrievedby the assessmentorder dated 30.3.2002. A directionhas been sought to determine the assessment of the properties of the petitioners under the-Unit ^Arg^aTMethod''"as..,Tasbeen held by the yfy' _ J U d I "••IQy DivisionBenciiQf^His Courtin 169(2010)d1Tv352(DB) Municipal Corporationof^elhiVs.^MajorGeneral'InderpahSmsh.Kahai&Anr. The secqpd prayer seeks a quashing of the order datbd 27.9.2002 ["''i i,- 5^ t' It' '<} l.-i ti i! i.J• 1^ (which W^s an order .&%amedDistrictJulge in appeal under Section Act, 1957 (DMC Act)apih^tfeo;Mep^^g^;50v3:Sob§IA prayerin the writ petition seeks a qualhingyofftfe passed by the learned District Judge on 22.7.2013 which was on the application of the petitionerunderSection171 ofthe DMC Act (seekingareviewofthe orderdated27.9.2002). All petitionsare premisedon the same submissions. Page2of9 The averments in the petitions disclose that the petition is bordered largely on the provisions of Section 116(G) of the DMC (Amendment)Act, 2003. Submissionis that after promulgation of the Unit Area Method, the DMC Act stood amended w.e.f. 01.4.2004 making the Unit Area Method applicable for the purpose of taxation within the municipal limits of Delhi. Section 116(G) was the transitoryprovision;^,sub-^section-(a) has''beenhighlighted. Further averments in-Ttfietpetitiondisclose that anCa^sessment/rectification /'".A order had |e^/passed Authority;^ properties ,•/ "f"; x i',' "0 of the petitionersfor seven yearM^fbetweenthe yeafs 1989 to the V! •uurii.fK !j '• I'J.kJi Ij year 1999'; the rateable valu'es have been fixed therein; this was under the provisionsoftiieJold|A^Fe.Oetpre^^fSii/^iitArda Method had been introduc'e;d/'lii''theDi^C Act. ,.,.The pptitionefswere aggrieved. They filed an appeaFun||r^^ectiom^|6^^ Old DMC Act which was listed before the DistrictJudge. This appeal was dismissedon ,27.9.2002. In November, 2002 the petitioners filed an application under Section171 of the DMC Act (Old) seekinga recall of the order dated 27.9.2002. Attentionhas been drawn to the provisoto Section 171 of the DMC Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Page3 of9 provision for review is adequately contained in the said Act. This applicationremainedpendingfor 11 years and was finallydisposedof on 22.7.2013. The present petition (as noted supra) is premised on the provisions of Section 116 (G) of the DMC Act. Submissionof the petitioneris thatthereviewpetitionwouldamountto a continuationof the appeal and sinGr|iere^&Htatut0^;p\^^ Section 171 of the DMC Acfio;;p;ermitareviewand'pcallanfeklierorderpassedin /f (l"" -A. il, .. •. I1 •i.i, ^ appeal, th| ^essmenthad not yet'tlcDomefinaf^fermsof Section '-N T-v. f 116(G)(2). Since the assessment of these properties;were not yet '3 I -ft 3 ji' f? • finalizedpetitioneris entM|<f|q^,tfeb^efitofSsectionTlld(G)(2)of Ifl. the Amended Act;,2(^3^5^he accofdmfly;^dehs^asses^entunder the V:- -.h-.-.-::.-.,,. -7,. Unit Area Methdd.'Af'^ Counteraffidavithad been filedto these averments.It is a short affidavitcounteringthe stand taken by the petitioner. Para 4 of the affidavit states that under Section 116(G)(2) of the DMC (Amendment)Act, 2003 the petitionercannot ask for an assessment under the Unit Area Method as the appeal stood dismissed on

27.9.2002and areviewcannotbe placedon an equal footingas thatof WP(C)Nos.5087/2014,5088/2014& 5538/2014 V > an appeal,the benefitof Section 116(G)(2)would not be availableto the petitioners. Rejoinder has also been filed. This Court notes that in the rejoinder,the petitionersappear to have set up a new case. In the rejoinderit has beenstatedthatthe Corporationcouldnot havepassed acommonassessmentor^Jkted 30.3.2002),aseparatenoticehad to be given for each t|||clear'^omthe provisionsof Sections 12fto;;,|27 of4h0MC Act. 'UteseVerments in the rejoinder|hojrthatthisT|gbihderis not in coh|bri|ncewith the averment^in the writ petihbn;.peH|onersappear to b| setting up a new case.I 4'S'S :i V, &l \ 'vJAiA A A .rTA Sif At D AA-A '• ''•k // Arguinent;|!ha;ve IfMfdtnclrec§r^:liis,3eenperused. What this Cbu^iasto?esserihS|gi'de^^^ whetherthe review petitionwhich had been filed by the petitionerin November, 2002 (under Section 171 of the DMC Act against the order (dated

27.9.2002)ofthe dismissalofhis appealand was pendingat the time whenthe UnitAreaMethodwas introducedby the DMC Act, 1957as amendedm2003)and thus whetherthe transitoryprovisionofSection 116 (G)(2)can workto the benefitofthepetitioners. Page 5 of9 Admittedly, in view of the various judgments laid down by the courts of |[aw an appeal is deemedto be a continuationof the original i proceedings and where an appeal is pending against an assessment order, the assessment is• deemed to be not "finalized" within the meaning of Section 116(G)(2) of the DMC Act. This has been reiteratedby the DivisionBench of this Court in 169(2010)DLT 253

(DB) MCD Vs. Ma0r Genenak^-IndewM-i^^^^ Kahai and Anr. Relevant extrac!reads-herein asyunlder: " "9. It is cleaiffiomthe thwdprovisotOiSection o^theDMCAct that evevh^kerean assessmentiffinalized, but an appealis pending, Up '--j j'l; N an assesseeis entitledto asRj^r-jfi^ei^isionin theappealtheannual value basis,. In otherwor,<ds\efefiafan}appellatestage^anassesseeis empoweredfp yalue of theproper1y.''^^^'"'^b':r. The question whicKMsr-beem before this Court is whetherareviewpetitionfiled againstthe dismissalofthe appealand admittedly pending at the time when the Amendment Act, 2003 (w.e.£01.4.2004)was introduced;whetherthe pendencyofthatreview petitionwould also tantamountto a non-finalizationof the assessment interms of Section116 (G)(2)ofthe saidAct. Page6of9 Relsvant would it be to extract Section 171 of the DMC Act. It reads as follows: !

¶171Finality of appellate orders.- The order of the Municipal Taxation Tribunal confirmingsetting aside or modifyingan order in respect of any rateable value or assessment or liability to assessment or taxation shall befinal. Provided that it shall be lawful for the Municipal Taxation Tribunal upon applicptioh' or gp its own-motion, to review any order passed by it in appealxyithindhree mo'ntfiS'fromthg date ofthe order ". •- d-p' "-'f. Reh)^ant7'%duldit-be to also extractthe^=]gfqyisionsof Section 116(G)(2) •bfihe DMC Act; it reads,as'linden ^ H. r ,1 I! jv: "(2)Notwi'thstandingari)0(h§fcontained in sub-section(l), where assessment'%asjiBtidyebiffim^^fmTt^f^t'^'of af^accmt land or coveredsp^ace^'ofu,fml4^ng.grboth,,on'thedtdF'o^hecommencement of the Delhi MuMcifaly^i^mti&pP^ Act, 2003 the assessee may have such land oFbuilding or both, as the case may be, assessed on the basis ofthe annual value. " The provisoto Section171 clearlystatesthat an orderpassedin appeal is subjectto a statutoryreview,the rider being that the review petitionhas to be filed within three months. In this case the appeal under Section 169 of the DMC Act has been dismissed on 27.9.2002. WP(C) Nos.5087/2014, 5088/2014 & 5538/2014 A The review petition was filed within the statutory period of three months i.e. in November, 2002. It is an admitted fact that the review vas pending at the time when Unit Area Method was petition ' introduced in 2004 under the DMC Act (Amendment) Act 2003. It was final y decided on 13.4.2013. The intention of the Legisjature as carried out in the proviso Section 171 of cleaipteprhviidesthat the Appellate '-r 1' Court may rjCqn'siderits-d'eeiSiotfif a petitiohyseeK^greview ofits order is preferred within three months^ This reconsid^ation was yet " f II pending at the time when ((heiiamendment of 2003 was introduced. ;; hi 4 4 }I .i i ''i "Review literally and evj^^ddih^Mf^means re-examinationor a reconsiderdtipn. is the universal acceptanceoflauman/falUjDilify 595S.Nagraj& Ors. Vs. State ofKarnatdka andLAnKf:-^^'^^ A combined reading of the proviso to Section 171 of the DMC Act with hold that section 116(G)(2) of the said Act persuades this Court to this transitoryprovisionof Section 116 (G)(2) of the DMC Act would cometo the aid of the petitioner. WP(C) Nos.5087/2014, 5088/2014 & 5538/2014 Since the review petition was pending before the ieamed DistrictJudgeit can inno mannerbe saidthatthe assessmenthadbeen "fmaiized"qua the propertiesofthe petitioners;the AmendmentAct of 2003 has come into force during the pendency of these review petitions. The petitioners were thus entitled to take benefit of assessmenton the basis of annual value i.e. under the "Unit Area Method". • ' The piidfefsfmadein'thSpfeionsare aloiJe35(,The caseofthe petitioner-iiowJeconsider&omaiSiuhi value irirfermsof the DMC Act (Amtedment)Act, 200111:111jiltitionersare dire|edto appear beforethel^CompetentAuth:p^0i|^ 17. | Theasses|jS|yS!lii#bf ^^allbe passedby the C&n^t^pSritJ^^ three months thereafter. Petitionsdisposedofinthe abovet^rms. INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 06,2017/ndn ^

n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 02.3.2017 Judgment delivered on ; 06.3.2017 + W.P.(C) 5088/2014 &C.M,No.l0154/2014 RAM LAL KAUSHALYA DEVI TRUST Petitioner Through Mr.R.P.Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Advocates. versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Through Ms.Geeta Mehrotra, Advocate. COILVM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET IC\UR. J. For orders see W.P.(C) 5087/2014.