WPC No.1113/2010 Page 1 33. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1113/2010 PREM CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Advocate. versus M.C.D.& ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 23.02.2010 1. Property No. D-44, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Delhi was assessed to property tax and rateable value was fixed at Rs.2,42,710/- per annum vide assessment order dated 26th June, 1998 with effect from 1st April, 1997. At that time, Mr. Amit Malik and Ms. Meenu Narula were owners of the property and had entered appearance. The said assessment order records that the property was being used for semi commercial purposes and the total cost of construction as per the valuation report submitted by Mr. Amit Malik and Ms. Meenu Narula was Rs.11,27,810/-. This valuation report was submitted as the said owners had made addition/alternation on the ground floor and had constructed first floor, second floor and third floor after purchasing the property. The assessment order further records that the said Mr. Amit Malik and Ms. Meenu Narula had purchased the land for Rs.75,000/- and had paid another amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the built up area. The Assessing Officer observed that the consideration declared was abnormally low and he fixed the market value of land on the date of sale at Rs.12,600/- per square meter. This assessment order was not an ex parte assessment order, but was passed in the presence of father of Mr. Amit Malik. 2. It appears that in 2001, Mr. Amit Malik made a representation that the rate of the land taken at Rs.12,600/- per square meter was high and this should be WPC No.1113/2010 Page 2 reduced. Thereafter, it appears that internal file noting were made for reduction of rate of the land to Rs.9,450/- per square meter. However, no rectification order was passed. There was no challenge to the assessment order and the same was allowed to become final. 3. The petitioner thereafter purchased this property pursuant to auction held by State Bank of India on 27th December, 2005. The petitioner thereupon decided to challenge and question the assessment order dated 26th June, 1998 fixing the rateable value of the property at Rs.2,42,710/- with effect from 1st April, 1997. It appears that on 3rd April, 2007 a rectification order was passed on the basis of internal notings dated 27th January, 2001, 30th January, 2001 and 2nd February, 2001 and the rateable value was reduced to Rs.2,05,570/- with effect from 1st April, 1997. Obviously this order was passed at the behest of the petitioner as admittedly he had purchased the property on 27th December, 2005. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Municipal Taxation Tribunal challenging the order dated 3rd April, 2007. In the garb of challenging the said order, the petitioner in fact wanted to challenge the order dated 26th June, 1998 fixing the rateable value of the property. 5. Learned tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner cannot challenge and question order dated 26th June, 1998 after a lapse of more than ten years. The said order was allowed to become final and binding. 6. Mr. Amit Malik, owner of the property had appeared and had asked for reduction of rate of rent in the year, 2001. On the basis of his representation, the respondent had made internal notings dated 27th January, 2001, 30th January, 2001and 2nd February, 2001 that the rate of rent should be taken as Rs.9,260/- instead of Rs.12,600/-. However, no rectification order or any other communication was addressed either the earlier co-owners or the petitioner. After the petitioner became owner of the property, he obviously was instrumental in getting the rectification order dated 3rd April, 2007 passed. The said order in fact accepts the plea and contention of the erstwhile owner to reduce the value of land to Rs.9,450/- per square meter. 7. Learned tribunal has rightly held that the power of rectification is not WPC No.1113/2010 Page 3 synonymous with power of appellate forum in repeal. The present case was not of an ex parte assessment. The assessment order dated 26th June, 1998 cannot be reviewed or recalled on merits in absence of any statutory provision. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the order dated 3rd April, 2007 cannot furnish any fresh ground to the petitioner to challenge and question the order dated 26th June, 1998. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010 VKR/NA