The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petitioner's writ appeal against an order by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal which held that service of notice via pasting at the site, without personal effort or registered post, was improper. The court found no error in the Tribunal's observation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
versus
SATPAL SINGH ..... Respondent Through :Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 25.02.2016
Respondent purchased ground floor of property bearing No. A-7, Gujranwalan Town, Delhi on 25th November, 2002, in built-up condition, for Rs.7,00,000/-. The said property was assessed to property tax by the petitioner vide order dated 31st March, 2004 fixing the rateable value as Rs.81,300/- (residential) with effect from 1st April, 2000, rateable value as 99,900/- (residential) with effect from 5th August, 2002 and rateable value as Rs.8,16,000/- (commercial) with effect from 1st September, 2002.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, respondent filed an appeal before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (MCD). The impugned order was assailed on the ground that no notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (“the Act”, for short) was ever served on the respondent before passing the impugned order. On the basis of material produced before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (MCD), it has been held that appellant had failed to show that the notice under Section 126 of the Act was properly served on the respondent. It has been observed that no efforts were made to serve the notice by tendering it to the respondent or by sending it through the registered AD post, instead it was sought to be served by pasting at site on 31st March, 2008. Tribunal has held that service of notice by pasting without making any effort to serve it personally and/or by sending through the registered AD post, cannot be held proper service.
I do not find any error in the observation taken by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (MCD). Appeal is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2016 rb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessment order passed without proper service of notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was legally maintainable.
Whether serving notice by pasting at site constitutes proper service when personal delivery or registered AD post was not attempted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.C.D.
SATPAL SINGH
A.K. PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
