Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1016 (DEL)

BRYTON'S P. LTD. v. M. C. D.

2007-05-14

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)-This writ petition is directed against an order dated 5.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioners appeal H.T.A. No. 406 of 2004. The said appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.3.2004 fixing the rateable value of the property No. A-200, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, as under: Rs. 4,37,320/- per annum w.ej. 7.9.1993 Rs. 4,13,050/- per annum w.ej. 1.4.1994 Rs. 4,26,650/- per annum w.ej. 1.4.1995. ... 2. The impugned order, in para 4, records the contention of the appellant that the rateable value could not have been fixed for the year 1992-93 since no electricity had been supplied and the appellant had not commenced its industrial activities in that year. It was further urged that licence to run the industrial unit was granted to the appellant only with effect from 24.7.1995, therefore, no rateable value could be fixed for the year 1992-93. In para 5, the impugned order notes: It is not disputed by the appellant that the construction of the building was completing during the year 1992-93 and even completion certificate was granted by the Competent Authority in that year itself." 3. Before this Court, three submissions were made by Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition on 24.1.2006 and those three submission are noted as under: "Three points are urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. First point urged is that the notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act was not served and, therefore, the very assessment is vitiated. Second point urged is that the land value had to be determined in the context of actual sale instances. Third point urged is that completion certificate was never obtained and, therefore, the findings in para 3 of the impugned order that building was completed during the year 1992-93 and even completion certificate was granted is incorrect." 4. Thereafter, this Court issued notice limited to the third contention, that the building was not completed in the year 1992-93 and no completion certificate was obtained. This Court directed the respondent-MCD to produce the records to show that completion certificate for the property was obtained in the year 1992-93. 5. Mr. Ajay Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the MCD has produced the records of the case. He refers to the three documents. This Court directed the respondent-MCD to produce the records to show that completion certificate for the property was obtained in the year 1992-93. 5. Mr. Ajay Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the MCD has produced the records of the case. He refers to the three documents. First is a noting on file countersigned by the authorized representative ( AR) of the petitioner and by the Joint Assessor and Collector on 11.3.2004 recording the submission of the AR that he agreed to taking the cost of construction as per the "valuation report i.e., 1989-93". The second document is the valuation report dated 24.12.1995 submitted by the petitioner in which, against the column "year of construction", the figures "1989-93" are indicated. The third document, is the postal acknowledgement receipt in respect of notice issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Ace). These documents have also been shown to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sharma states that these documents in any event do not indicate when the completion certificate in respect of the building was issued. He further contends that the so-called admission made by the peti tioner before the assessing authority and before the Appellate Tribunal was obviously erroneous. In response to a question as to when, according to the petitioner, the completion certificate was obtained and submitted to the MCD, Mr. Sharma states that no completion certificate was ever applied for. 7. To this Court it appears a pointless exercise to require the MCD to produce a completion certificate that was never applied for by the petitioner. At the same time, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that the building never stood completed. The petitioners assertion in para 10 of the writ petition that the building was completed in September 1995 is belied by the valuation report submitted by the petitioner before the MCD which indicates that the construction was completion in 1993. Significantly the various stages of the completion are also indicated in the last portion of the valuation report. The concession made on behalf of the petitioner twice - once before the assessing authority and secondly before he Appellate Tribunal was based on this factual position. 8. No fault can be found with the impugned decision dated 5.9.1995 of the appellate authority. The concession made on behalf of the petitioner twice - once before the assessing authority and secondly before he Appellate Tribunal was based on this factual position. 8. No fault can be found with the impugned decision dated 5.9.1995 of the appellate authority. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.