Dismissed

Radhika Sharma v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC15 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/6162/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi (Bench of J. Endlaw) dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order under Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act. The Court held that rateable value for land capable of being built upon or in the process of erection is fixed at 5% of capital value, regardless of reconstruction. The challenge to the amount's 'adjectives' and alleged exorbitance was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition impugning the assessment order dated 7th September 2013 was dismissed.

Radhika Sharma Vs New Delhi Municipal Council — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6162/2015 & CM No.11192/2015 (for stay) RADHIKA SHARMA ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Arun Malik & Mr. A.B. Pandey, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra & Mr. Abhishek Misra, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 15.03.2016

¶11

The petition impugns the assessment order dated 7^th September, 2013 of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) assessing the rateable value of property no.191, Golf Link, New Delhi with effect from 1^st February, 2013 under Section 63(2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 at Rs.3,30,00,000/- being the 5% of the purchase price of the land. 2. The petition was entertained and a counter affidavit has been filed.

¶12

I may record that though the order dated 7^th September, 2013 under Section 72 of the NDMC Act also fixes the rateable value of the property with effect from April, 2012 at Rs.7,23,900/- but there is no challenge thereto in the prayer paragraph in the writ petition, prayer wherein is confined with respect to the assessment of rateable value with effect from February, 2013 at Rs.3,30,00,000/-.

¶13

The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute, that the petitioner purchased 65% share in the property in the year 2012 and acquired the remaining 35% share in the property in the year 2013; that in September, W.P.(C) 6162/2015 Page 1 of 3

¶14

2013, the property was mutated in her name; that on 20^th December, 2012, the plans for reconstruction of the said property submitted by the petitioner sanctioned; that the petitioner demolished the construction earlier existing, in January, 2013; that the construction was completed in September, 2014 and Completion Certificate issued on 5^th December, 2014.

¶15

The counsel for the petitioner has premised his arguments on the fact that the increase in rateable value from that of Rs.5,93,200/- in 2012 to Rs.7,23,900/- and thereafter to Rs.3,30,00,000/- is exorbitant and thus the petition should be allowed.

¶16

However, attention of the counsel has been invited to Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act.

¶17

The counsel for the petitioner does not controvert that the rateable value fixed of Rs.3,30,00,000/- is 5% of the capital value of the land. Once that is so, it is not understandable on what basis challenge is made. No challenge on adjectives and on the increase being exorbitant can be allowed in law.

¶18

The counsel for the petitioner then refers to the New Delhi Municipal Council (Determination of Annual Rent) Bye-laws, 2009 particularly to Para 4(2) thereof to contend that the annual value of any land, not constructed upon, has to be arrived at by multiplying the total area of such land by base unit area value of Rs.1,000/- per sq. mtr.

¶19

The said argument is misconceived. As per Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act, the rateable value of any land which is not built upon but is capable of being built upon and of any land on which a building is in the

¶20

W.P.(C) 6162/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

process of erection, is to be fixed not on the basis of annual rent it is capable of fetching but at 5% of the estimated capital value of such land. There is thus no merit in the said argument also.

¶23

The counsel for the petitioner has then contended that since the subject land had already been built upon earlier and is now being re-built upon and minimum one and a half years is taken in raising construction, evaluation should not be as per Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act.

¶24

However neither is there any basis for the said argument nor is it made out in law.

¶25

There is no such embargo in Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act. Moreover, there is plethora of case law to the effect that land which is being re-constructed is also to be assessed as per Section 63(2) of the NDMC Act. 13. There is thus no error in the assessment order impugned in this petition

¶26

The aforesaid adjudication is without prejudice to plea of the respondent NDMC of the writ remedy being not available and the remedy of the petitioner being by way of statutory appeal. It may also be recorded that at the beginning of the hearing, opportunity was given to the counsel for the petitioner to prefer an appeal but he declined the same.

¶27

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶30

MARCH 15, 2016 ‘gsr’..

¶31

W.P.(C) 6162/2015

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Radhika Sharma v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Sharma v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Des Raj Arora & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs Gautam & Ors.

Amrit Kumari Vs Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors.

Jayant Sahai Vs Land Deveopment Officer

Sudhir Singh Teotia Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Veetee Fine Foods Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shyam Advertisor Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Suresh Kumar

M/S Aprajit Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Realtime Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Kanwar Pal & Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Suresh Babu Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Rekha Gupta Vs Kaustav Saha & Ors.

All India Carrom Federation Vs Union of India

Rajinder Kaur @ Rani Vs Ajay Kumar Sinha