Disposed

Smt. Heminder Kumari v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC17 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4873/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a property tax Demand Notice and Attachment Notice issued by NDMC over a Jor Bagh residential property. The court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹60 lakh as part arrears within six weeks; on such deposit, NDMC was to grant her a personal hearing and decide her representation, with no coercive steps meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to deposit ₹60,00,000 within six weeks; hearing before NDMC thereafter; no coercive steps till representation decided; Assessment Order copy to be supplied.

Smt. Heminder Kumari Vs New Delhi Municipal Council — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4873/2025 & CM APPLs. 22458/2025 & 22459/2025

¶4

SMT. HEMINDER KUMARI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog with Mr. Kartik Wadhwa, Advocates. (M): 7678656066 Email: [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Addl. SC, NDMC. (M): 9810798828 Email: [email protected]

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 17.04.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 22458/2025 (Application for Exemption)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application is disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 4873/2025 & CM APPL. 22459/2025 (for interim protection)

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Demand Notice dated 20^th December, 2024, which as per the petition, has never been received by the petitioner. Further, the present petition also challenges the Attachment Notice dated 18^th February, 2025, issued by the respondent qua the residential property of the petitioner, bearing no. 164-A, Jor Bagh, New Delhi .

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

W.P.(C) 4873/2025

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 13:03:18

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Attachment Notice dated 18^th February, 2025, in case, the due amount as demanded by the respondent/New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”), is not paid within 5 days, direction had been issued to vacate the said property. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no Demand Notice under Section 100 of the NDMC Act, 1994 has been received by the petitioner. He further draws the attention of this Court to the various documents, attached as Annexure-P6 (Colly), to submit that the petitioner has been paying the property tax regularly. He submits that the petitioner has been making representation to the respondent/NDMC, for grant of hearing and also indicate the basis of the arrears, which have been demanded by the NDMC towards the property tax. Thus, he submits that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner despite various requests.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/NDMC submits that an Assessment Order dated 16^th January, 2017, has been passed in the present case. He submits that two notices, viz . 29^th January, 2007 and 27^th August, 2008, were issued under Section 72 of the NDMC Act, 1994, which duly stands served. He, however, submits that the first notice dated 29^th January, 2007, was served on the previous owner, as the petitioner herein stepped in as the owner of the property in question only subsequently, vide Sale Deed dated 21^st May, 2007.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent/NDMC further submits that hearing was granted to the petitioner on 02^nd February, 2012, and 13^th October, 2014. Consequently, since no objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Assessment Order dated 16^th January, 2017, came to be passed by the NDMC.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

W.P.(C) 4873/2025

¶23

¶24

He further submits that as of today, there are arrears of ₹ 1,67,34,033/-, which are payable by the petitioner towards the property tax.

¶25

He further draws the attention of this Court to the copy of the Bill dated 02^nd June, 2024, attached as Annexure-P7 to the present writ petition, to submit that as per the said document, the current demand payable for the year 2024-2025, is ₹11,25,000/-. However, against the said demand, the petitioner has paid only an amount of ₹4,77,110/-, as per the receipt, which has been filed on record as Annexure-P6 (Colly). Thus, he submits that the petitioner owes huge arrears towards property tax, as aforesaid.

¶26

Responding to the same, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the hearing as granted to the Assessee on 02^nd February, 2012 and 13^th October, 2014, were not attended by the petitioner. He submits that the deposit of property tax, was earlier being handled by the husband of the petitioner, who has since expired. Thus, he submits that the petitioner intends to pay the property tax. However, the petitioner is not aware of any basis as regards the demands, which are raised by the respondent/NDMC. He, thus, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, if the petitioner is granted a proper hearing by the respondent/NDMC.

¶27

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- within a period of six weeks towards the part arrears of the property tax, as demanded by the respondent/NDMC.

¶28

Upon the deposit of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- within a period of six weeks, the respondent/NDMC shall grant hearing to the petitioner and decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner shall

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

W.P.(C) 4873/2025

¶31

¶32

be granted personal hearing, in this regard.

¶33

Further, the petitioner is also at liberty to file any documents as may be required by the respondent NDMC, at the time of hearing.

¶34

It is directed that till the representation of the petitioner is not decided after being granted the due hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent NDMC. However, the direction in favour of the petitioner, is subject to payment of the aforesaid amount, within a period of six weeks. 15. In the first instance, the protection granted today shall operate only for a period of six weeks. In case, the petitioner does not deposit the requisite amount within a period of six weeks, as granted by this Court, the protection granted by today’s order shall automatically lapse.

¶35

In case, the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount within a period of six weeks, the protection granted by today’s order, shall inure to the benefit of the petitioner during the pendency of the representation before the NDMC.

¶36

The respondent/NDMC is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶37

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner/her Authorized Representative shall appear before the concerned officer, Deputy Director (Property Tax), Property Tax Department, at Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 on 03^rd June, 2025 at 11:00 AM. 19. This Court notes the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that copy of the Assessment Order dated 16^th January, 2017 may be provided to the petitioner.

¶38

The needful be done by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, during the course of the day.

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

W.P.(C) 4873/2025

¶41

¶42

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶43

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶44

APRIL 17, 2025 c

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

W.P.(C) 4873/2025

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 13:03:18

Smt. Heminder Kumari v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Heminder Kumari 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

Devender Kumar Tyagi & Anr. Vs Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Ram Dev Singh Yadav Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Harshi Uppal Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi & Anr.

Gdr Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrl CIRCLE-25, Delhi & Ors.

Gsr Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Officer Ward 103 Delhi & Ors.

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Mamta Goyal Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Dev Singh Yadav Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Anshul Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Shyam Tiwari Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Kartar Singh Vs Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Society for Alternative Fuel and Environment (Safe) Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mrs. Santosh Maheshwari (Senior Citizen) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.