W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7001/2009 and CMs 2411/09 & 2412/09 Date of decision : 19.02.2009 IN THE MATTER OF : #MCD ...... Petitioner ! Through : Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate versus $ DR. DEV KUMAR ..... Respondent ^ Through : None. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/MCD against the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee, being aggrieved with the assessment order of the Deputy Assessor & Collector, Rohini Zone, dated 18.12.2007 in respect of the property bearing No. B-33, New Multan Nagar, Delhi, filed an appeal before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal, Delhi challenging the assessment order on W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 2 of 4 the ground that the ratable value was fixed on the old method of assessment, which was not permissible. The said contention of the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the Tribunal overlooked the fact that this was a case where vide order dated 15.02.2006, the learned ADJ had directed the assessing authority to reassess the property by quashing the earlier assessment orders dated 03.01.2005 and 30.03.1999. He submits that at the time of passing of the aforesaid order, it was neither clarified by the learned ADJ that the reassessment should be done as per UAM method or for that matter, even the assessee did not make any such request. He states that in these circumstances, the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Assessor & Collector, Rohini Zone did not suffer from any infirmity and ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal on the ground that the UAM had not been applied for assessing the property tax. 4. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner was duly taken into consideration by the Tribunal and dealt with at length. In para-10 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that the plea of the MCD that UAM could not have been applied for reassessing the property tax on account of the fact that the assessment was not pending on 01.08.2003/01.04.2004, could not be accepted for the reason that the MCD W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 3 of 4 had, by its own circular dated 18.03.2004, duly ratified vide Resolution No. 226 dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Standing Committee of the Corporation, permitted application of UAM method. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner/MCD, having passed the assessment order dated 28.07.2006 on the basis of UAM, could not have passed a subsequent order dated 18.12.2007, basing the assessment on the old method. 5. In this regard, the original records have been produced by the counsel for the petitioner and duly perused. Vide letter dated 16.06.2006 addressed by the respondent/assessee to the petitioner, the assessee specifically requested the authority to decide his case under the UAM. The said request of the assessee was duly acceded to by the petitioner/MCD and as per the assessment order, the UAM method was therefore applied to the property in question. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that once the request for application of UAM was received from the assessee and was granted by the petitioner, whereafter an assessment order was passed, there was no justification for the assessing authority to have suo motto passed yet another assessment order dated 18.12.2007 while refusing to apply the UAM method, but reverting to the old method of assessment. 5. The provisions of section 116(G)(2) of the amended Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 do not come to the aid of the petitioner in the present case, when the assessing authority had itself, after the case was W.P.(C) 7001/2009 Page 4 of 4 remanded to it, followed the UAM and directed the assessment to be made on the said basis. In the absence of any request by the respondent/assessee to review the said assessment order, the assessing authority could not have reviewed the same unilaterally, and under the garb of the said review, recall the earlier order of reassessment carried out under the UAM dated 16.06.2006 and make a fresh assessment under the old method, contrary to the request of the respondent/assessee. 6. There appears no illegality, infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned order, which deserves interference in writ jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal is maintained. The present writ petition is dismissed alongwith the pending applications. 7. File be consigned to Record Room. HIMA KOHLI,J FEBRUARY 19, 2009 rkb