Airports Authority of India v. MCD

66 /////

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

67

in tiiat regard under Section 114C needed to be determined. It faults the impugned order for the period 01.04.2004 to 03.05.2006 on this aspect. It is urged more particularly, that in an airport, the bulk of the area is deemed to be an "open area", i.e. as in DIAL which has over 3!/2 thousand acres falling within the municipal areas, the bulk of it would not be constructedand in fact the constructionwould be only to the extent of around one percent. It is thus contended that the bye-law4 which also pertainsto collectionof propertytax, is virtually rendered unworkableand appropriateprinciples have to be evolved in this regard. Learned counsel highlightsthat the demand for setting-up of an Anomaly Committee in terms of Section 116K of the 1957 Act was made, but was not acceded to.

1. The MCD argues that each of the aspects urged is capable of considerationby the appellateauthority and consequentlythis Court should not considerthe feasibilityof giving evidence with respect to the value of land and the cost of constructionwhich are essentially factual aspects. As far as the question of Base Unit Value of the constructedportionsand other levies that the AAI might be subjected lo, learned counsel urges that there is no bar for the appellate authority to go into these aspects to make an appropriate determination. She further contests that the Municipal Valuation Committee(MVC) in fact categorisedthe lands that are now part of the airport and are under or controlled by the AAI as falling in •categories G and H and other categories depending on their location. It is contended, therefore, that the question of constitution of Anomaly Committee does not arise.