ANIL DEV SINGH ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi (Appellate Authority under Section 169 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957) dated October 5, 1988 passed in H. T. A No. 248 of 1987. The controversy in the case relates to computation and determination of rateable value of property No. A-218, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi with effect from February 9,1985. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the petition are as under ( 3 ) A plot of land measuring 566. 67 sq. yards was allotted by the D. D. A. to the respondent bearing the aforesaid number in the aforesaid area at a cost of Rs. 23,162. 00. Possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent sometime in May 1978. According to the petitioner the construction on the plot was started on January 12,1979 when the work of boundary wall was given to a contractor and subsequently basement, ground floor and mezzanine were completed on July 31, 1984. A completion certificate was applied for on August 1, 1984 and the same was issued on February 15, 1985. ( 4 ) THE Dy. Assessor and Collector issued a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to the respondent in respect of the property in question. Pursuant to the notice the respondent filed written objections dated April 22, 1985. After hearing the respondent and considering the objections the Dy. Assessor and Collector by his order dated February 23, 1987 fixed the rateable value of the respondent s property at Rs. 62,650. 00. While fixing the rateable value he accepted Rs. 3,62,667. 00 as the cost of construction of the building as mentioned in the balance sw›heesubmitted by the respondent, but added an additional sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 in accordance with cost index as contained in CPWD schedule of rates on the ground that the construction of the building was spread over a period of three years. In regard to the cost of land, he came to the conclusion that the construction commenced in the year 1982 and accordingly calculated the cost of land on the basis of construction having commenced in the said year. The respondent not being satisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Authority preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. In regard to the cost of land, he came to the conclusion that the construction commenced in the year 1982 and accordingly calculated the cost of land on the basis of construction having commenced in the said year. The respondent not being satisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Authority preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. On October 5, 1988 the appeal came to be decided by the Additional District Judge who held that the Assessing Authority was not justified in adding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 to the cost of construction after having accepted Rs. 3,62,677. 00 as the cost of construction as given in the balance sheet of the respondent. In this regard, the learned Additional District Judge observed as follows: . . . . Taking into account that Ld. Assessor had accepted the cost of Rs. 3,63,667. 00 as mentioned in the balance sheet, there was no justification for further addition of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. Order clearly indicates that he had accepted the cost of construction as Rs. 3,63,667. 00. There was, therefore, no justification for addition of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and accordingly findings of Ld. Assessor on this point cannot be sustained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost of construction in respect of property is held to Rs. 3,62,667. 00. " ( 5 ) IN so far as the cost of land was concerned, the learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the market price of the land on the date of commencement has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the component of the cost of land. He noticed that there was some controversy with regard to the fact as to whether construction started on January 12, 1979 or subsequently in the year 1981. According to him this controversy was apparent from the valuation report of the Assessor filed by the repsondent. In this view of the matter, he was of the opinion that the rateable value was required to be readjudicated after hearing the respondent and after allowing him an opportunity to adduce evidence. In these circumstances, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority with a direction to re-fix the rateable value of the property in question in the light of the observations and findings arrived at by him. In these circumstances, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority with a direction to re-fix the rateable value of the property in question in the light of the observations and findings arrived at by him. It is this order of the Additional District Judge which has been impugned in this writ petition by the petitioner M. C. D. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge was not right in fixing the cost of construction especially when the matter was being remanded to the Assessing Authority on the ground that it was not clear as to on which date the construction was commenced. Learned counsel contended that having held so, he should have left the determination of the cost of construction of the building to the assessing authority. She further submitted that the enquiry in the matter has now revealed that the respondent fabricated documents and had deliberately given wrong dates of commencement of the construction and completion thereof. The dates of commencement of the construction and date of completion has a direct bearing on the cost of construction. Besides the construction according to the respondent was completed in the year 1986 while actually the completion was in the year 1984, pointed out the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to her wrong date of completion was given by the respondent to evade property tax. ( 7 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the opinion that the writ petition needs to be dismissed for the reasons which we proceed to state. ( 8 ) THE Assessing Authority accepted the cost of construction of the building in question as mentioned in the balance sheet of the respondent. According to the balance sheet, the cost of construction of the building was Rs. 3,62,667. 00. After specifically accepting the cost of construction of the building at Rs. 3,62,667. 00 the Assessing Authority added an additional sum on the basis of CPWD schedule of rates on the ground construction of building was spread over a period of three years. This addition was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge as he found that there were no basis for the addition made by the Assessing Authority after accepting the cost of construction. This addition was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge as he found that there were no basis for the addition made by the Assessing Authority after accepting the cost of construction. Since there was no controversy about the cost of construction as the same had been accepted by the Assessing Authority, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to remand this aspect of the matter to the Assessing Authority. If the petitioner now feels that the cost of construction as reflected in the balance sheet of the respondent was not correct and the Assessing Authority wrongly accepted the cost of construction under some misapprehension, its remedy would not be under Article 226 of the Constitution but would be one for the review of the order passed by the Additional District Judge. It is also not understandable as to how the petitioner is claiming that subsequent enquiry revealed that the construction did not commence in the year 1979 but on a later date,when in the order of the Assessing Authority, while dealing with the question of cost of land, he had taken 1982 as the year in which the construction started. We should not, however, be understood to have expressed any opinion on the question of the alleged fabrication of documents by the respondent. ( 9 ) IT also needs to be noticed that the present writ petition has been filed after about four years of the passing of the impugned older by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to explain the delay in filing the writ petition on the ground that sometime was taken in enquiring into the matter regarding the date of commencement of the construction of the building and date of completion thereof and as soon as the results were available the same was filed. We do not want to go into the merits of explanation rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the writ petition as we are not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file an application for review before learned Additional District Judge with an application for condonation of delay. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file an application for review before learned Additional District Judge with an application for condonation of delay. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties will dispose of the review petition and the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, writ petition is dismissed but liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the Additional District Judge by means of review petition.