( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 6. 5. 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi who, while accepting the respondent s appeal has fixed the ratable value of the property bearing No. 220-D, Defence Colony, Delhi. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law in as much as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix the ratable value of the property in question on the basis of the scheduled rates prescribed by the Land and D. O. and on the basis of the valuation report of the valuer. ( 3 ) IN view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh Vs. M. C. D. AIR 1985 SC 339 ratable value has to be fixed keeping in view the standard rent which is determined on the basis of the cost of the land and cost of construction in the year in which the construction commended. In the instant case, the Assessing Authority has fixed the ratable value of the property in a slip shod manner. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed her inability to support the telegraphic order passed by the Assessing Authority. In the instant case, the learned Additional District Judge has fixed the rate of the land on the basis of the scheduled rates prescribed by the L and D. O. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has committed a patent illegality in determining the market price of the land on the basis of the scheduled rates of L and D. O. See (Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. C. P. Gosain CWP 4122/90 decided on 24th October, 1991; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N. C. Jain and Anr. CWP 4096/91 decided on 17. 5. 1993; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. K. P. Gupta CWP 438/1988 decided on 26. 3. 1990. In view of the decisions referred to above, it is apparent that neither the scheduled rates of the Land and Development Officer nor auction rates alone can form the basis for determining the market price of land although both are relevant pieces of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority alongwith other evidence which the parties may produce before the Assessing Authority. In this connection, I may usefully excerpt the following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in M. C. D. Vs. N. C. Jain and Ors. (supra): "one of the basis for arriving at the market price of land is by invoking the principles contained in Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act while determining the market price of land which is acquired by way of acquisition. The assessing authority should try and ascertain as 10 the market rate of land on the basis of the sale deed, auction prices etc. near about the time when the construction began in the immediate or near vicinity of the land where it is situate. If the evidence which would be primary evidence is not available, then reference and reliance can be placed on such circulars which are issued by various Government departments. If the said circulars are contradictory, as they appear to be in the present case, then it would be the duty of the assessor and Collector to try and ascertain from those Government departments on the basis on which the said Government departments have fixed the land rates. ( 4 ) WHILE deciding the cost of construction of the premises in question, the learned Additional District Judge has assessed the cost of construction on the basis of the Valuation Report of the Valuer. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for assessing the cost of construction of the premises in question. ( 5 ) FOR the forgoing reason, the writ petition is allowed and the assessment order dated 15. 6. 1987 and the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge are hereby set aside. The Assessing Authority is directed to re-determine the ratable value of the premises in question in accordance with law. It will be open to the parties to lead such evidence with regard to the price of land and the cost of construction as may be available to them in accordance with law. No order as to costs. .