S. N. Sapra, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Conutitution of India, petitioners have challenged the letter dated 3/05/1991, forpayment/recovery of Rs. 4,83,427. 97, on account of house tax. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are, as under :petitioner and others are co-owners of flats, OH the second andthird floors of property No. G-7, Connaught Place New Delhi, whichthey purchased from Shri D. S. Pal and Shri Yashpal Oberoi in theyears 1982-83. New Delhi Municipal Committee, respondent no. 1herein, assessed the rateable value of the property at Rs. 864. 00,rs. 443. 00, Rs. 3720. 00, Rs. 1215. 00, and Rs. 540. 00 respectively. Theproperty was re-numbered by respandent no. 1, as G-37, G-38g-63/86 and G-81, Laxmi Building, G-7, Connaught Circus, Newdelhi. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to petitioners, prior to sale to them, and other co-owners,the original owners, carried out additions/alterations in the property on thefirst, 2nd and third floors, and mezzanine floor, with the sanction of respondentno. 1. Respondent no. 1 issued a notice for revision, in the rateable value of theproperty, for the year 1982-83 onward, to the original owners, thereby, proposing to fix the rateable value, on account of the construction. For the first floorthe rateable value was proposed at Rs. 6,60,000. 00, for third floor/mezzanine floorrs. 11,63,000. 00andrs. 1,70,000. 00,for additional area of ground floor. Thusthe proposed increase in the rateable value of the property was from Rs. 6,732ato Rs. 19,45,000. 00 for that year. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the assessement of the aforesaid rateable value, Shrid. S. Pal and Shri Yashpal Oberoi, the original owners, filed a writ petitionbeing No. 801 of 1984, in this Court. Vide judgment dated 23/05/1985 thiscourt, allowed the writ petition and directed the N. D. M. C. to re-assess therateable value, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) VIDE resolution No. 27 dated 1/07/1986, respondent re-assessedthe annual rateable value of the property, for the purposes of house lax atrs. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 per cent. The house tax, which became payable came tors. 23,689. 13. ( 6 ) VIDE letter dated 1/07/1986, respondent no. 1 informed theprevious owners that pursuant to the decision of the High Court, the originalvalue had been proposed to be assessed at Rs. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 percentandthe house tax at Rs. 23,689. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 per cent. The house tax, which became payable came tors. 23,689. 13. ( 6 ) VIDE letter dated 1/07/1986, respondent no. 1 informed theprevious owners that pursuant to the decision of the High Court, the originalvalue had been proposed to be assessed at Rs. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 percentandthe house tax at Rs. 23,689. 13, for the period from April 1, 198 2/03/1983. Same rateable value was adopted for the subseqnent years, i. e. 1983-84,1984-85 and 1985-86. For the year 1985-86, house tax of Rs. 23,689. 13 waspaid to respondent No. 1, from the amount, withheld by respondent no. 2, outof the rent of petitioners and other co-owners. ( 7 ) VIDE letter dated 9/11/1987, respondent no. 1 directlydemanded a sum of Rs. 2,30,250. 81, on account of arrears of house tax, for theperiod 6/04/1981, to 31/03/1987 from respondent no. 2, who is thetenant of petitioners. ( 8 ) THE flats were mutated in the names of petitioners and co-owners. The decision was conveyed to petitioners, vide letter dated 30/12/1988. According to petitioners, respondent no. 2 has been making regular payment ofrent to petitioners. But, vide letter dated 29/01/1991, respondent no. 1,in illegal manner, sent attachment orders to respondent No. 1, for recovery ofrs. 24,401/10 on account of the tax, for the period from April 1, 198 9/03/1991. Respondent no. 2 adjusted the amount from the rent and depositedthe same with respondent no. 1. Again, respondent no. 1, without any instruction, sent a letter to respondent no. 2/05/1991, thereby, demanding therecovery of Rs. 4,83,427/97, on account of arrears of house tax, for the periodapril 1, 198 6/03/1987. ( 9 ) THE grievance of petitioners is that the impugned demand/order iswithout any basis and respondent no. 1 has acted without any jurisdictionbecause, at no stage, any annual rateable value was fixed more than that ofrs. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 per cent. ( 10 ) IN its counter affidavit, respondent no. 1 has given a very vaguereply, to the allegations, made by petitioners. It is alleged that petition is notmaintainable, as petitioners have alternative remedy by way of appeal, asprovided under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act. On merits, respondentno. 1 has alleged that extensive additional constructions, rennovations at site,called for revision of rateable value. Respondent no. 1 is fully empowered toeffect the recovery of house tax. It is alleged that petition is notmaintainable, as petitioners have alternative remedy by way of appeal, asprovided under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act. On merits, respondentno. 1 has alleged that extensive additional constructions, rennovations at site,called for revision of rateable value. Respondent no. 1 is fully empowered toeffect the recovery of house tax. The assessment of the rateable value for eachyear is independent and it has no relevancy for the previous or coming years. Itis further alleged that the assessee had not filed objections, to any of the impugned assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 and that the notices were issued to theassessee, as per municipal records. ( 11 ) IN its reply, respondent No. 1 has not given the true facts. It isnot mentioned, as to what was the increased annual rateable value, for the year1986-87 and onward and as to when the same was assessed. It is also notmentioned as to whom, the notice was issued. Even, it is not stated as to whatis the annual rateable value of the property. ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that the original owners made construction/alterations and additions in the various floors of the property, with the sanctionof respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 then proposed to increase the annualrateable value from Rs. 6732. 00 to Rs. 19,45,000. 00 per annum. This annualrateable value was assessed for the year 1982-83. It is also not disputed thatthis Court in writ petition No. 801 of 1984, quashed the annual rateable value,so fixed by respondent no. 1, and directed it to assess the same, in accordancewith the decision of the Supreme Court. ( 13 ) VIDE letter dated 1/07/1986, respondent no. 1 informed theoriginal owners that the High Court, vide its order dated 23/05/1985, hadquashed the assessment, finalised by the N. D. M. C. and that vide its resolutionno. 27 dated 1/07/1986, had approved the proposal for assessment for thatyear. The annual rateable value, so proposed for that year, was Rs. 2,10,570. 00less 10 per cent. The house tax on that amount comes to Rs. 23,689/13. Sameannual rateable value was proposed and assessed for the subsequent years,namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85, vide letter dated 1/07/1986. ( 14 ) THE main dispute in the present petition relates to the demand,made by respondent no. 1, for the year 1986-87 and sent to respondent no. 2for recovering the amount, from the rents, payable to petitioners. 23,689/13. Sameannual rateable value was proposed and assessed for the subsequent years,namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85, vide letter dated 1/07/1986. ( 14 ) THE main dispute in the present petition relates to the demand,made by respondent no. 1, for the year 1986-87 and sent to respondent no. 2for recovering the amount, from the rents, payable to petitioners. ( 15 ) VIDE letter dated 9/11/1987, annexure E, which is notdisputed, the Collector, N. U. M. C, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,30,250. 91 onaccount of house tax, for the period April 1, 198 6/03/1981 fromrespondent no. 2, by adjusting the rent. Again, vide letter dated May 31 199)annexure K, Collector N. D. M. C. demanded a sum of Rs. 4,83,427,97 fromrespondent no. 2, by adjusting the rent for the same period. Either in thecounter affidavit or during the arguments, respandent no. 1 has failed to explainthis glaring contradiction in the records of the Committee. Even, respondentno. 1 has failed to disclose the basis, on which these two contradictory amountshave been claimed. What is the annual rateable value and how for the same yeartwo different amounts, on a very high side, were being claimed. The allegationsof petitioners, that for years, subsequent to the year 1986-87, same annualrateable value of Rs. 2,10. 570. 00 less 10 percent had been fixed, has not beendisputed. It may be pointed out that the challenge in the present petition isnot to the assessment, but to the action of the Committee, which is withoutjurisdiction. To my mind. it appears that the N. D. M. C. has adopted the originalproposal of the annual rateable value, which had been set aside by the Highcourt, vide judgment dated 23/05/1985. ( 16 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Now, the properties havebeen mutated in the names of petitioners. Admittedly, no notice has been givento petitioners for any years, for fixing the annual rateable value. Thereforeany demand, is also without jurisdiction. As, the action of respondent no I iswithout jurisdiction, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. ( 17 ) IN my view, respondent no. 1 has not acted in accordance withlaw and, in fact, has acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the recordsmoreover, respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to give true facts and explainthe various anamolies, as pointed out by petitioners. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons given above, the petition is allowed and thedemands of respondent no. 1 has not acted in accordance withlaw and, in fact, has acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the recordsmoreover, respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to give true facts and explainthe various anamolies, as pointed out by petitioners. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons given above, the petition is allowed and thedemands of respondent no. 1, are quashed and set aside. Respondent no 1 isfurther directed to recover the amount, if any, on the basis of the rateable valueof Rs. 2,10,570. 00 less 10 per cent. For this, N. D. M. C. will send a demandseparately to petitioners. However, respondent no. 1 is at liberty to increase therateable value, if there is any addition or alteration, after following the provisions, as contained in Punjab Municipal Act. No order as to costs