RAJARAM KANDOI Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-3-1999 passed by the additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur whereby his revision petition was only partly accepted with the direction that after 15-12-1997 the disputed land and building were partitioned between the petitioner-Rajaram Kandoi and his brother Naresh kumar Kandoi as per the decree of the Civil court, therefore, the same should be considered as separate units for the purpose of assessment of the land and building tax. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the appellate authority dated 21-3-1998 and the order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 22-3-1996 whereby the aforeasaid two units for the purpose of assessment were treated as one unit.

(2.) I have heard Shri P. S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri s. N. Gupta, the learned Deputy Government Advocate.

(3.) SHRI P. S. Sharma argued that the petitioner had purchased the land jointly with his brother paying for half share by registered sale deed on 8-4-1991. A family settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and his brother and the said land and building were partitioned between the petitioner and his brother which was duly attested by notary Public on 4-7-1992. A civil suit was also filed to get the aforesaid partition sanctified which eventually was decreed by the court on 15-12-1997. Learned counsel argued that since there are two separate units, they ought to be treated as two, but the learned authorities below have committed an error of law in treating these units as one for the purpose of assessment. He argued that half of the value of the properly can be accepted as the valuation of one unit owned and possessed by the petitioner. Assessment has to be made on the basis of maximum value and in doing so the Assessing Authority has to give due weightage to the valuation report of the registered valuer. According to the report of the valuer submitted by the petitioner, valuation of the building as on 1-4-1992 was only Rs. 10,54,600/- whereas the Assessing Authority has assessed its value to the tune of Rs. 24,98,800/- as on 1-4-1995 which is excessive and unreal, given the fact that the Assessing Authority for the previous block of two years had assessed the value of the same property at Rs. 5,10,700/- as on 1-4-1992. The appellate authority did not apply its mind to all these arguments and disposed of the appeal by perfunctory and non-speaking order. The revisional authority also without entering into all these aspects, merely based its order on the pre-received report without deciding the plea of the petitioner to assess the two units separately. Shri P. S. Sharma in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of this Court in Smt. Shanta Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 1993 decided on 8-7-1993 and State v. Narendra Kumar kaushik, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4134 of 1992 decided on 23-8-1993, reported in 1994 (1) WLC 150.