NARESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition raises the question, of levy of property tax under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation.Act,1957 (hereafter called DMC Act,1957), upon buildings constructed in agricultural lands,inthe context of Section 115(4).(c) of the said Act exempting "agricultural lands and buildings (other than dwelling houses." .

(2.) We shall-refer briefly to the facts of the case. The petitioner claims to 623 have purchased agricultural land admeasuring 13 bighas 10 biswas bearing Khasra No. 6, Killa No. 16 (3.01), 6/15 (3-11), 6/17(4-16), 6/24 (1-14), 6(0.18), situate in the revenue estate of village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, as per Annexures P2 and P3. Petitioner says that on 5.8.93, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner, that in 1986-87, a tube-well was bored for irrigation purposes, that a boundary wall was constructed in 1986- 87 and as the land was situated in the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi, no permission was required under the DMC Act, 1957 and Building Bye-Laws, 1983. It is stated that on 17.1.1990, a building plan was sanctioned by the Corporation for construction of a building in the aforesaid agricultural land, and a building was constructed and is being ''used for agricultural purposes". It is also said that whenever the petitioner or his family members visit the farm, they temporarily stay there for a night. It is also stated that neither the petitioner nor any other person, is residing in the said building permanently. It appears that the petitioner received a notice under Section 131 of the DMC Act dated 4:2.1993, as per Annexure P6, and the petitioner's attorney Mr. Suresh Kumar filed objections (as per Annexure P5) stating that no 'farm house' was constructed. It is stated that on 15.12.1993, the petitioner received another notice under Section 131 of the DMC Act, calling upon the petitioner to give the information detailed in the notice (vide Annexure-P6). It appears that the attorney replied on 27.12.93 to the said notice as per Annexure P7 that there is no policy as yet regarding property-tax on 'farm houses' and also it is not dwelling house within the meaning of the said words in Section 115(4)(c) of the MCD Act, and the notice may be withdrawn. While so, the 5th respondent (Deputy Assessor & Collector) sent a further letter (Annexure P8) to the petitioner's attorney stating that the house in question is a farm house on which property tax is leviable,. there was, therefore, no question of withdrawing the notice and that petitioner is oblilged to send the information called for. Thereafter the impugned notice (Annexure P1) dated 2.2.94 was received by the petitioner's attorney, calling for information as to whether the "farm house" was rented out or was under self-occupation, extent of area of land, date of purchase, date of construction, plinth area in each floor, date of commencement and completion of construction, cost of building, including cost of garden, ground, out-houses, if any, appertaining to the building or part thereof, any. fitting affixed to the building for the beneficial enjoyment thereof, details if any, of any swimming pools, lifts, etc. However, no cost of moveable furniture or fittings need be included. Cost of boundary wall was to be included. Petitioner could give cost of boundary walls also. A list of value of land for the years for 1981-82 to 1993-94 was furnished. 624

(3.) Questioning the said notice Annexure PI dated 2.2.94, which was issued under Section 131 of the DMC Act, the writ petition is filed seeking the quashing of the said notice, and also seeking a declaration that the words "other than dwelling houses" in Section 115(4)(c) was unconstitutional and also repugnant to the provisions of the Act.