Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing or modifying the order dt. 16. 12,1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, fixing the rateable value of premises No. A-5, Nirman Vihar, Delhi at Rs. 27. 390. 00 w. e. f. 7. 10. 1982. ( 2 ) THE assessing officer had fixed the rateable value at Rs, 34,720. 00 w. e. f. 7. 10. 1982. This as noted earlier was reduced to Rs. 27,390. 00 by the Additional District judge in appeal. Petitioner s grievance before the Additional District Judge was that the land value had been wrongly taken by the Assessing Authority at Rs. 900. 00 per sq. mtr. , while at should have been Rs. 200. 00 per sq. mtr. , as per the Landdo rates circu- lated. The learned Additional District Judge had re-computed the rateable value and assessed the same at Rs. 21,3901- by taking the cost of land at Rs. 320. 00 per sq. mtr. and the cost of construction at Rs. 3,04,088. 00. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition had taken a plea that the finding in the im- pugned order of Additional District Judge that cost of construction was not disputed was wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner upon seeking instructions from Mr. A. C. Gulati, states that they are not pressing this plea and disputing the cost of construc- tion, as adopted by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner is confining the chal- lenge in the writ petition to the adoption of land rate at Rs. 320. 00 per sq. mtr. Instead ofrs. 200. 00persq. mtr. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the rates should have been assessed at Rs. 200. 00 per Sq. mtr. , which is the Landdo rate, rather than adopting DDA rates. Learned, counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea that Landdo rates could be applied only to colonies developed by it and not to colonies developed by dda is mis-conceived. The adoption of DDA or Landdo rates on the basis of which agency developed the colony would not be a rational way to proceed, since it is the market rate at the time of commencement of construction, which has to be deter- mined. The adoption of DDA or Landdo rates on the basis of which agency developed the colony would not be a rational way to proceed, since it is the market rate at the time of commencement of construction, which has to be deter- mined. The market rate is not to be fixed on the basis whether the colony was developed by one agency or the other. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that no primary evidence was available or had been led by either of the parties. DDA land rates, as circulated vide Circular No. PA/c (L)/1/82 dated 1. 6. 1992 in respect of jhil Khuranja for the period 1. 1. 1981 to 31. 10. 1981 is Rs. 320. 00 per sq, mtr. , while landdo rates, as circulated vide letter No. Landdo 5 (2)/85/cdn dated 14. 2. 1985 for nirman Vihar colony, which falls within the vicinity of Jhil Khuranja for the period 1. 4. 1979 to 31. 3. 1981 is Rs. 200. 00 per sq. mtr. , for residential area. ( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel for the respondent/mcd submits that he has in- structions to state that the Landdo rates applicable at the time of commencement of construction may be adopted. This statement is being made with in view to resolve pending assessments and would not operate as a precedent. In this case, the date of commencement of construction is claimed to be 8. 3. 1981. The writ petition is partly al- lowed. The impugned order dated 16. 12. 1997, passed by Additional District Judge, is modified to the extent that the land rate while computing rateable value be taken on the basis of Landdo of Rs. 200. 00 per sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 320. 00 per sq. mtr. , as taken by the Additional District Judge, based on DDA rates. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.