NARENDRA PRASAD DUBE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the assessment and determination of rateable value with respect to property belonging to the petitioner at 57, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the notices and bills etc. issued by the respondent Corporation in this behalf. In an order passed by this Court on 17th February, 1998 it was observed: Broadly speaking the writ petition involves two questions, (i) jurisdiction of the respondent to make the assessment for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92; (ii) the determination of rateable value of the property.

(2.) On the question of determination of rateable value of the property, the assessing authority was directed to assess the rateable value afresh. We find that the assessing authority has determined the rateable value afresh. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing an additional affidavit. We are of the view that the petitioner has statutory remedies available against the order of the assessing authority. We do not wish to entertain the challenge to the rateable value in the present proceedings.

(3.) Coming to the question of jurisdiction of the assessing authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a sine qua non for any amendment of assessment list and revision of rateable value of any property. In the absence of service of a valid notice under Section 126 of the Act, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to amend the assessment list or revise the rateable value of any property. A notice under Section 126 of the Act was served on the assessee by way of pasting at the property in question on 28th March, 1992. According to the petitioner this is no compliance with the requirement of notice contained in Section 126. On the other hand according to the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi there is due compliance of the provision of service of notice proposing amendment of rateable value. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the alleged notice does not comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Act inasmuch as the notice should have allowed one month's time to the assessee from the date of service and this one month period should expire prior to 1st April, 1992. In other words, the contention is that the thirty-day notice period envisaged under sub-section (3) should expire before 1st April, 1992. Lastly, it was urged that the requirement under sub-section (3) is that the Commissioner, M.C.D. should give the notice which means that the notice must be signed by the Commissioner himself. In the present case the notice is admittedly not signed by the Commissioner, therefore, the notice is bad.