Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Sh. Anand Khanna and V.P. Khanna and Another

Vikramajit Sen, J.—These Petitions are covered by the decision in R.K. Khandelwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, LPA No. 938/2002 decided on 25th August, 2004 The Division Bench had allowed the Petitions of assessed whose assessment had not been completed within three years. It had been held that this event must mandatorily include the dispatch of the Order by registered post to the assessed. The question that has arisen is whether an Assessment Order purporting to have been made u/s 126(4) would be leally proper and efficacious even if it had been passed after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which a Notice had been issued. In all these Petitions the assertion of the MCD is that an Assessment Order had been passed within the stipulated period of three years. However, there is no proof of dispatch of the Orders, leave alone their service on the assessed concerned. LPA No. 162/2003 was disposed of in these terms:

In this appeal the notice was given during the period ending 31.3.1997. The last date when the assessment order could be made, Therefore, was 31.3.2000. The order admittedly was not sent by any mode and was merely handed over to the appellant on 17.4.2000. Therefore, it continued to be within the domain and control of the assessing officer till that date. As a consequence the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result, Writ Petition No. 3227/2002 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is hereby dismissed.

Returning to the facts of these Petitions the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent is that the Assessment Order has been pre-dated and, thereafter has been merely kept on the file. The ratio in Khandelwal''s case applies in full force there by rendering these Writ Petitions without merit. It was essential for the MCD to prove that the Assessment Orders had been served on the assesseds within the period of three years. Learned counsel for the MCD states that the Rectification proceedings had been carried out on the request of the assessed. In the first place no provision exists in the MCD Act permitting or authorizing the rectification of a Rateable Value. Secondly, the stand of the MCD that a request for Rectification was made by the Respondents is strenuously denied and no evidence in this regard is forthcoming from the MCD. A self-serving statement in the Order that a demand for Rectification has been made can be of no avail to the MCD.

The Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed.