BHARTI JAIN Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in these Writ Petitions yet again is whether it is possible for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to calculate and determine the rateable value of property and fasten liability for payment of Municipal Taxes on the owner whose details it possesses, without issuing him any notice. Alternatively stated, would the assessment be liable for being set aside on the ground that the owner was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard?

(2.) A letter dated 4.12.1998 authored by the Deputy Assessor and Collector, C-XIV to Shri Tilak Raj, owner of flat No. 9/501, East End Apptt, Chilla, New Delhi - 96 is on record. It contains an admission to the effect that the Administrator of the above Society vide his letter dated 17.3.1998 had forwarded a list of 1313 flats containing the names and addresses of the flat owners to enable the respondent to assess the flats which had been allotted to various members individually, such as the petitioners in these four petitions. Accordingly the case falls on all fours with WP(C) No. 5222/1999 titled MCD v. Sunil Kumar fain decided by me on 4.3.2004 in which the decision of the Supreme Court in MCD v. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., 62(1996) DLT 222 had been applied. This was also the view taken by my learned Brother, R.S. Sodhi, J. in Orders dated 11.12.2003. These Orders were assailed in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 516/2004,510/2004 and 540/2004 which were dismissed on 1.2.2005. The lament in the opening paragraph of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench deserves reproduction: 1. How recklessly and negligently the officers of the Corporation are dealing with tax matters! This is a case where the officers of the Corporation are vigilant about their rights to take salary and to raise other demands but are not aware of their duties. They should know that salary comes by way of tax from the people at large and it is their duty to act strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) My learned Brother, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. had in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. L.P. Naithani and Anr., 102 (2003) DLT 61 made the following observations, and yet, nevertheless, had dismissed aforementioned Letters Patent Appeals: 5, It is relevant to note that Section 124 of the said Act provides for an assessment list to be prepared while Section 126 provides for amendment of the assessment list. Section 128 provides for notice of transfers. It is not disputed that the society in question did not intimate the list of occupants of each flat and neither did the flat owners approach the petitioner corporation intimating about the flat allotted to them. Thus in my considered view the observations of the Supreme Court in MCD v. Trigon Investment and Trading Private Limited, 62 (1996) DLT 222, would apply to the facts of the case. The ratio of the said judgment is that the corporation should not be running after the assessees and enquiring from the owner about the transfer of any property. It was the duty of the society and the individual member to have intimated the corporation about the same. This has been the basis of the judgment rendered in CR 12237/97 and CR 5872/99. It was abvious from a reading of this passage that Justice Kaul was of the view that the MCD cannot be expected to run after assessees and, therefore, the opinion which he subscribed to in the Division Bench gains futher importance.