JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.-This writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) dated 25.3.1975 and 28.3.1978 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act) for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78 respectively in respect of property Nos. 1 and 2, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (the property in question) and hold the subsequent proceedings thereto to be illegal. 2. The rateable value (RV) of the property in question was initially fixed at Rs. 7470 per annum. A notice dated 27.3.1968 was issued to the petitioner proposing to fix the RV at Rs. 5,38,000. By an order dated 9.9.1974 the Deputy Assessor and Collector fixed the RV at Rs. 2,88,790 per annum with effect from 19.2.1968 on the basis of the standard rent after taking into account the cost of land at Rs. 275 per sq. yd. Against the said order dated 9.9.1974 the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 169, DMC Act which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge ( ADJ) by an order dated 21.4.1975. The case was remanded for re-assessment of RV on the basis of standard rent keeping in view the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Diwan Daulat Ram Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Council, ILR 1973 Delhi 363. 3. Meanwhile, the MCD sent a bill dated 6.1.1975 to the petitioner demanding property tax at the RV of Rs. 2,88,790. The petitioner then filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 1977 against the MCD in the Court of the Sub-Judge, I Class, Delhi seeking a permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that for the years 1968-69 to 1974-75 the property taxes should not be recovered from the petitioner at a RV other than Rs. 7470 per annum. 4. On 25.3.1975 the MCD sent a notice under Section 126 DMC Act proposing to enhance the RV from 2.88,790 to Rs. 2,94,220 for the Assessment Year 1974-75 with effect from 1.4.1974 on the ground that certain alterations and renovations had taken place on the ground floor of the property in question. The petitioner filed its objections thereto on 16.4.1975 within the stipulated time, i.e. 5.5.1975. According to the petitioner the MCD is yet to take a decision on the said notice dated 25.3.1975 which has been challenged in this petition. 5. The petitioner filed its objections thereto on 16.4.1975 within the stipulated time, i.e. 5.5.1975. According to the petitioner the MCD is yet to take a decision on the said notice dated 25.3.1975 which has been challenged in this petition. 5. Meanwhile, Civil Suit No. 56 of 1977 filed by the petitioner was decided by a judgment dated 30.5.1978 whereby the learned Sub-Judge restrained the MCD from recovering property taxes at an RV higher than Rs. 7,470 for the years 1968-69 to 1974-75 till the decision on remand. This decision dated 30.5.1978 of the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi was not challenged by the MCD and therefore became final. 6. The MCD issued a further notice dated 28.3.1978 to the petitioner for the year 1977-78 again proposing to enhance the RV from Rs. 2,88,790 to Rs. 5,21,990 with effect from 1.4.1977 on the ground of increase in rental value. In the said notice, the existing rateable value was shown at Rs. 2,88,790. The petitioner filed its objections thereto on 12.4.1978 within the stipulated time, i.e. 2.5.1978. According to the petitioner the MCD is yet to take a decision on this notice as well. The said second notice dated 28.3.1978 has also been challenged in this petition. 7. In respect of the above two notices dated 25.3.1975 and 28.3.1978, the MCD waited for 13 more years and issued a call letter dated 12.3.1991 fixing the date of the petitioners appearance on 19.3.1991. At that stage the present writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. By an interim order dated 7.1.1992, this Court stayed the realization of the disputed demand. It appears that this order was stayed by the Honble Supreme Court, which order remains in force. 8. Mr. H.L. Narula, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the present writ petition the subsequent assessment had been finalized and the disputed demand of property tax had been paid. However, he submits that this petition has not become infructuous only for that reason. He points out that the Assessment List for the years 1967-68, 1974-75 and 1977-78 was authenticated by the MCD on 11.4.1967, 27.4.1974 and 21.4.1977 respectively. However, he submits that this petition has not become infructuous only for that reason. He points out that the Assessment List for the years 1967-68, 1974-75 and 1977-78 was authenticated by the MCD on 11.4.1967, 27.4.1974 and 21.4.1977 respectively. Since the authenticated Assessment List was conclusive evidence in terms of Section 125 of the DMC Act it could not be sought to be amended without following the procedure under Section 126 of the DMC Act. With the earlier attempted revision of the RV having been held illegal by the civil Court on 22.4.1975, the MCD could not have adopted an RV other than Rs. 7470 per annum which in fact has formed the basis of the Assessment List authenticated by it for the subsequent years. Further, since the property was entirely under self occupation since the date of its construction there was no question of increase in the rental value being offered as a ground for the proposed upward revision of RV. According to him, there has been no change whatsoever in the property since 1967-68 warranting any revision of RV. He further points out that the MCD was obliged to decide the objection to the notice under Section 126 within a reasonable time period. If the proposed amendment for the year 1977-78 was allowed to be made after 12 years it would be render the MCDs action unreasonable and arbitrary. He refers to the time bound scheme for recovery of property tax under Sections 153 to 156 of the DMC Act and the limitation for recovery of taxes in terms of the proviso to Section 455 of the DMC Act. According to him, even if no limitation has been provided under the DMC Act for finalising the notice under Section 126, Article 113 of the Limitation Act would apply. He places reliance on the judgments in Laxmi Chand v. MCD, AIR 1988 Delhi 220 to contend that Article 62 of the Limitation Act would apply for recovery of arrears of house tax. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Tin Can Manufacturing Co. v. MCD, 19 (1981) DLT 23 (DB)= 1980 RLR 643 he submits that revision of the RV after authentication of the Assessment List under Section 124(6) of the DMC Act would be illegal. 9. Appearing for the MCD Ms. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Tin Can Manufacturing Co. v. MCD, 19 (1981) DLT 23 (DB)= 1980 RLR 643 he submits that revision of the RV after authentication of the Assessment List under Section 124(6) of the DMC Act would be illegal. 9. Appearing for the MCD Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate points out that after the amendment to under Section 126(4) of the DMC Act with effect from 30.3.1991, there is a limitation of three years for making amendments to an assessment list. She submits that in view of this provision the petitioners grievance in the present petition does not survive. In response to a query from the Court whether any decision had been taken by the MCD pursuant to the impugned notices dated 25.3.1975 and 28.3.1978 and whether the hearing contemplated by the notice dated 12.3.1991 took place and was concluded, Ms. Gupta sought the to take instructions. Parties were then given time to file written notes of arguments within one week from 3.7.2007, the date on which the case was finally heard and orders were reserved. While Counsel for the petitioner has filed written submissions, Counsel for the MCD has not done so and also not furnished the answers to the queries posed by the Court. Therefore, the Court is proceeding on the footing that the MCD is yet to decide the objections filed by the petitioner to the impugned notices. 10. On the above submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the following questions arise for determination: (a) Whether the disposal of objections against the notices of assessment under Section 126 of the DMC Act can be kept pending beyond the date of authentication of the assessment list for the following year? (b) Whether there is any implied period of limitation for the disposal of objections in response to the notice of assessment issued by the Corporation under Section 126 of the DMC Act." 11. The relevant provisions of the DMC Act prior to the amendment n 2003 read as under: See. 123. (b) Whether there is any implied period of limitation for the disposal of objections in response to the notice of assessment issued by the Corporation under Section 126 of the DMC Act." 11. The relevant provisions of the DMC Act prior to the amendment n 2003 read as under: See. 123. Property taxes /1 first charge 0/1 premises on which they are assessed- Property taxes due under this Act in respect of any land or building shall, subject to the prior payment of the land revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon, be a first charge- (a) in the case of any land or building held immediately from the government, upon the interest in such land or building of the person liable for 5ach taxes and upon the goods and other moveable properties, if any, found within or upon such land or building and belonging to such person, and (b) in the case of any other land or building, upon such land or building and upon the goods and other moveable properties, if any, found within or upon Such land or building 124. Assessment list- (1) Save CIS otherwise provided in this Act, the Corporation shall cause an assessment list of all Lands and buildings in Delhi to be prepared in such form and manner and containing such particulars with respect to each land and building as may be prescribed by bye-laws. (2) When the assessment list has been prepared the Commissioner shall give public notice thereof and of the place where the list or a copy thereof may be inspected, and every person claiming to be the owner, lessee or occupier of any land or building included in the list and any authorized agent of such person, shall be at liberty to inspect the list and to take extracts therefrom tree of charge. (3) The Commissioner shall, at the same time, give public notice of a date, not less than one month thereafter, when he will proceed to consider the rateable values of lands and buildings entered in the assessment list; and in all cases in which any land or buildings is for the first time assessed [or the rateable value of any land or building is increased] he shall also give written notice thereof to the owner or to any lessee or occupier of the land or building. (4) Any objection to a rateable value or [any other matter] as entered in the assessment list shall be made in writing to the Commissioner before the date fixed in the notice and shall state in what respect the rateable value, [or other matter] is disputed, and all objections so made shall be recorded in a register to be kept for the purpose. (5) The objections shall be enquired into and investigated, and the persons making them shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard either in person or by authorized agent, by the Commissioner or by Officer of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by the Commissioner. (6) When all objections have been disposed of, and the revision of the [rateable value] has been completed, the assessment list shall be authenticated by the signature of the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the officer authorized by him in this behalf, who shall certify that except in the cases, if any, in which amendments have been made as shown therein no valid objection has been made to the [rateable values] or any other matters entered in the said. (7) The assessment list so authenticated shall be deposited in the office of the Corporation and shall be open, free of charge during office hours to all owners, lessee and occupiers of lands and buildings comprised therein or the authorized agents of such persons, and a public notice that it is so open shall forthwith be published. 125. Evidential value of assessment list-- Subject to such alterations as may thereafter be made in the assessment list under Section 124 shall be accepted as conclusive evidence- (a) for the purpose of assessing any tax levied under this Act, of the rateable value of all lands and buildings to which such entries respectively relate. 126. 125. Evidential value of assessment list-- Subject to such alterations as may thereafter be made in the assessment list under Section 124 shall be accepted as conclusive evidence- (a) for the purpose of assessing any tax levied under this Act, of the rateable value of all lands and buildings to which such entries respectively relate. 126. Amendment of assessment list- (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list- (a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or (b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or (c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or (d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or (e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or (f) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or (g) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building, re-erected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment list; Provided that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year [in which the notice under Sub-section (2) is given]. (2) Before making an amendment under Sub-section (1) the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to Subsection (1) and Sub-section (2), before making any amendment to the assessment list for the years [commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the 1stdayof April, 1989 and the 1stdayof April, 1990, under Sub-section (1) the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month at anytime before the 1st day of April, 1992] that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objection which may be made by such person. (4) No amendment under Sub-section (1) shall be made in the assessment list in relation to- (a) Any year prior to the year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, after the 31st day of March, 1991; (b) The year commencing on the 1st day of April 1988, ur any other year thereafter, after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the notice is given under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), as the case may be: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a case where the Commissioner has to amend the Assessment list in consequence of or to give effect to any direction or order of any Court. 127. Preparation of new assessment list- It shall be the discretion of the Commissioner to prepare for the whole or any part of Delhi, a new assessment list every year or to adopt the rateable values contained in the list for any year, with such alteration as may in particular cases be deemed necessary, as the rateable values for the year following, giving the same public notice as well as individual notices, to persons affected by such alterations, of the rateable values as if a new assessment list had been prepared. See. 455. Mode of recovery of certain dues- In any case not expressly provided for in this Act or any bye-law made thereunder any due to the Corporation on account of any charge, costs expenses, fees, rates or rent or on any other account under this Act or any such bye-law may be recoverable from any person from whom such sum is due as an arrear of tax under this Act. Provided that no proceeding for the recovery of any sum under this Section be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date on which such sum becomes due. 12. The scheme of the DMC Act, as it existed prior to the amendment in 2003, appears to be that Section 124 sets out a detailed procedure for determination of the property tax payable by initiating the assessment proceeding and preparing the assessment list. This is precursor to the final determination of the property tax which becomes payable by an assessee and which would constitute the first charge on the premises on which they are assessed in terms of Section 123 of the DMC Act. This is precursor to the final determination of the property tax which becomes payable by an assessee and which would constitute the first charge on the premises on which they are assessed in terms of Section 123 of the DMC Act. It is clear from Section 127 that the assessment list is required to be prepared every year and that once the assessment list is authenticated under Section 124 or an amendment is carried out under Section 126, the charge stands created on the property. After the amendment to Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 126 with effect from 30.3.1991, it appears that no amendment to the assessment list can be made in relation to any year prior to the year commencing from 1.4.1988 after 31.3.1991. Further there is a three-year period from the end of the year in which notice is given under Sections 126(2) and 127(3) within which the amendment has to be made. 13. It is clear from the decision of this Court in Tin Can Manufacturing Co. that objections against enhancement of RV must be decided by the MCD before the authentication of the assessment list under Section 124(6) of the Act. It has been held that any revision of the RV after authentication would be illegal and without jurisdiction. If the notice under Section 126 has to necessarily be subject to the time period mentioned under Sections 126(3) and 126(4) and further that the objections have to be decided even before the authentication of the assessment list, then it is clear that proceedings under Section 126 cannot continue indefinitely. It would be reasonable to conclude that the period of limitation under Article 113, that is period of three years from the date of issuance of the notice of assessment for amendment under Section 126 of the DMC Act or the date of authentication of the assessment list under Section 124 of the DMC Act would apply. 14. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the impugned notices, in respect of which no decision has been taken by the MCD for over 13 years, cannot be sustained in law. The assessment list for the years in question having been authenticated, it was impermissible for the MCD to seek to amend the said lists beyond the period laid down in the amended Sections 126(3) and 126(4) DMC Act. The assessment list for the years in question having been authenticated, it was impermissible for the MCD to seek to amend the said lists beyond the period laid down in the amended Sections 126(3) and 126(4) DMC Act. Secondly in view of the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1978 passed by the civil Court in Civil Suit No. 56 of 1977, there was no question of MCD being permitted to revise the RV at a figure higher than Rs. 7,470 for the years 1968-69 to 1974-75 till the decision on remand. It is also not denied that the property in question was self occupied and therefore the ground for the second proposed revision is untenable. Therefore, as far as the present case is concerned, the impugned notices can no longer proceeded with and are held to be unsustainable in law. They stand quashed accordingly. Consequently, any further proceedings pursuant thereto would also stand quashed 15. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. The pending applications stand disposed of. Writ Petition allowed.