1998 (4) TMI 561 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Application of Section 116(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Validity of the notice under Section 126 of the Act.
4. Assessment order passed by an officer other than the one who gave the hearing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
Although an objection was raised in the counter affidavit regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the provisions of appeal under Sections 169 and 170 of the Act, this objection was not pressed during the hearing. Therefore, this aspect was not further considered.

2. Application of Section 116(2) of the Act:
The petitioner challenged the revision of the rateable value, arguing that Section 116(2) of the Act does not apply to their case. The petitioner contended that the building was under reconstruction, and the land temporarily became an open piece of land due to the demolition of the existing structure. They argued that such cases should be treated as buildings under reconstruction and assessed under Sections 129 and 163 of the Act. The Corporation, however, assessed the property based on the potential market value derived from a brochure issued by the petitioner. The court noted that the building had not been completely demolished by the effective date, i.e., 1st April 1993, and thus, the plot could not be treated as an open piece of land liable to assessment under Section 116(2).

3. Validity of the Notice under Section 126 of the Act:
The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 126 was vague and invalid as it did not disclose the basis for the proposed rateable value of Rs. 15,17,52,000/-. The court emphasized the importance of the notice containing basic facts to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation. The court cited precedents where similar notices were held invalid for not providing sufficient details. The court directed the Corporation to supply the information sought by the petitioner in their objections dated 5th May 1994 within four weeks, without invalidating the notice under Section 126.

4. Assessment Order Passed by a Different Officer:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order on the ground that the hearing was given by one officer while the order was passed by another, violating principles of natural justice. The court agreed, stating that the officer who gives the oral hearing must also pass the final order to ensure the hearing is meaningful and effective. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in G. Nageswara Rao Vs. A.P.S.R.T. Corpn., which held that the decision must be given by the same officer who heard the party concerned.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 11th August 1997 and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The Corporation was directed to provide the petitioner with the basis for the proposed rateable value, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.