CAMBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DELHI LTD Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure of Rs 56,28,364/-. The plaintiff is the owner of property No. 11, L.S.C., Masjid Moth, New Delhi, which is assessed to property tax in the Records of MCD. The defendant vide its letter dated 09th September, 2004, confirmed that after meeting the property tax liability for the above said property for the period up to 31st March, 2004, a sum of Rs 40,62,782/- was lying with it as on 31st March, 2004. In the meanwhile, liability of the plaintiff towards property tax for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, amounting to Rs 40,8,000/- has been adjusted from the aforesaid amount, thereby leaving a balance of Rs 36,54,782/- with the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed that amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, amounting to Rs 19,73,582/-.

(2.) In its application for leave to contest, the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any money from it and, in fact, it owns a sum of Rs 95,28,566/- to the defendant, which it has not paid since 31st March, 2004. It is further alleged that the Ratable Value (RV) of property in question was revised to Rs 1,30,00000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1996, from the previous RV of Rs 11,30,530/-. Later, vide letter dated 26th March, 2000, the RV was reduced to Rs 91,03,500/- w.e.f. 14th February, 1998. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the Assessment Order dated 26th March, 2000, being Appeal No. 354/2000. In the meanwhile, disputes started between the plaintiff and its tenant which was later compromised and the plaintiff filed Writ Petition No. 2474 of 2001, claiming vacancy remission. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, an order was passed by the then Additional Assessor and Collector on 31st January, 2002 which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Appeal No. 109/2002. Both the appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide common order dated 01st July, 2002. Pursuant to the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Smt. Surbhi Varshney, the then Joint Assessor and Collector vide order dated 03rd September, 2004, fixed the RV at Rs 48,38,400/- w.e.f. 01st March, 1997 and Rs 11,30,530/- w.e.f. 1st April, 2001. According to the defendant, this was a blatant error on the part of Smt. Varshney. It is also alleged that Smt. Varshney was hand in glove with the plaintiff, was not competent to pass this order and caused major revenue loss to the department.

(3.) The defendant has not disputed the letter dated 03rd September, 2004, written by Smt. Surbhi Varshney, the then Joint Assessing & Collector, South Range to the plaintiff. The letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: