M.C.D. Vs. BIMLA AHUJA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12th Jan., 1977 passed by Shri P.K. Jain, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi affirming the judgment of the (rial court dated 22nd May, 1975. The respondent/plaintiffs were the co-owners of the property build on plot No. C-94 situated in New Delhi South Extension Part II. They have challenged the demand of the appellant committee for recovery of Rs. 6,435.65 on account of general damages and other taxes as detailed in impugned bill Exhibit P4 for the year 1972-73. This bill was addressed in the name of owners. It was contended that respondents 2 and 3 were never informed by the appellant of the intention of the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi to include plot of land in the assessment list under Sec. 124 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). All the owners or occupiers of the land and building are entitled to be served with notice under Sec. 124(3) of the Act in respect of the assessment and in the present case no notice was served on respondents 2 and 3 and they have been deprived of their right to file objections. It was, therefore, alleged that the assessment by the appellants on the basis of the impugned bill was illegal, null and void, ultra virus and without jurisdiction. The respondents could not be made liable to pay any tax for any period prior to the commencement of the year in which notice under section 126(2) was given and as no notice for enhancement was given to the co-owners of the property the assessment was illegal and could not be raised. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(2.) The trial Judge upheld the contentions of the respondents and held on appreciation of facts that the proposed enhancement was invalid and void as no notice was given to respondents 2 and 3 who were the co-owners of the property. The suit of the respondents accordingly was decreed and the appellant/defendants were restrained from recovering Rs. 6435.65 raised by impugned bill Exhibit P4. The appellant committee, however, was given the opportunity to recover taxes at rateable value of Rs. 1,250.00 per annum which was the rate on the basis of which the property was assessed previously. It was further held that the decree would not debar the appellant from reassessing the property which they could do, if advised after strictly complying. With (Sic.) by the first appellate court by judgment dated 12th Jan., 1977.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared for the respondent. The judgment of the trial court left it open to the appellant to raise assessment in accordance with law and it was provided that the decree passed in favour of the respondent shall not be a bar from re-assessing the property. In view of this no adverse order, in fact, has been passed against the appellant which calls for interference in the present second appeal. This appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.