JUDGMENT
S.N. Sapra, J.
(1) By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the letter dated 3/05/1991, for payment/recovery of Rs. 4,83,427.97, on account of house tax.
(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, as under :Petitioner and others are co-owners of flats, Oh the second and third floors of property No. G-7, Connaught Place New Delhi, which they purchased from Shri D.S. Pal and Shri Yashpal Oberoi in the years 1982-83. New Delhi Municipal Committee, respondent no. 1herein, assessed the rateable value of the property at Rs. 864.00,Rs. 443.00, Rs. 3720.00, Rs. 1215.00, and Rs. 540.00 respectively. The property was re-numbered by respondent no. 1, as G-37, G-38G-63/86 and G-81, Laxmi Building, G-7, Connaught Circus, NewDelhi.
(3) According to petitioners, prior to sale to them, and other co-owners,the original owners, carried out additions/alterations in the property on thefirst, 2nd and third floors, and mezzanine floor, with the sanction of respondent No. 1. Respondent no. 1 issued a notice for revision, in the rateable value of The property, for the year 1982-83 onward, to the original owners, thereby, proposing to fix the rateable value, on account of the construction. For the first floor the rateable value was proposed at Rs. 6,60,000.00, for third floor/mezzanine floorRs.11,63,000.00andRs.1,70,000.00,for additional area of ground floor. Thus the proposed increase in the rateable value of the property was from Rs. 6,732Ato Rs. 19,45,000.00 for that year.
(4) Aggrieved by the assessement of the aforesaid rateable value, ShriD.S. Pal and Shri Yashpal Oberoi, the original owners, filed a writ petition being No. 801 of 1984, in this Court. Vide judgment dated 23/05/1985 thisCourt, allowed the writ petition and directed the N.D.M.C. to re-assess treatable value, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.
(5) Vide resolution No. 27 dated 1/07/1986, respondent re-assessed the annual rateable value of the property, for the purposes of house lax atRs. 2,10,570.00 less 10 per cent. The house tax, which became payable came tors. 23,689.13.
(6) Vide letter dated 1/07/1986, respondent no. 1 informed the previous owners that pursuant to the decision of the High Court, the original value had been proposed to be assessed at Rs.2,10,570.00 less 10 percent and the house tax at Rs. 23,689.13, for the period from April 1, 198 2/03/1983. Same rateable value was adopted for the subsequent years, i.e. 1983-84,1984-85 and 1985-86. For the year 1985-86, house tax of Rs. 23,689.13 was paid to respondent No. 1, from the amount, withheld by respondent no. 2, out of the rent of petitioners and other co-owners.
(7) Vide letter dated 9/11/1987, respondent no. 1 directly demanded a sum of Rs. 2,30,250.81, on account of arrears of house tax, for the period 6/04/1981, to 31/03/1987 from respondent no. 2, who is the tenant of petitioners.
(8) The flats were mutated in the names of petitioners and co-owners.The decision was conveyed to petitioners, vide letter dated 30/12/1988.According to petitioners, respondent no. 2 has been making regular payment of rent to petitioners. But, vide letter dated 29/01/1991, respondent no. 1,in illegal manner, sent attachment orders to respondent No. 1, for recovery ofRs. 24,401/10 on account of the tax, for the period from April 1, 198 9/03/1991. Respondent no. 2 adjusted the amount from the rent and deposited the same with respondent no. 1. Again, respondent no. 1, without any instruction, sent a letter to respondent no. 2/05/1991, thereby, demanding the recovery of Rs. 4,83,427/97, on account of arrears of house tax, for the period April 1, 198 6/03/1987.
(9) The grievance of petitioners is that the impugned demand/order is without any basis and respondent no. 1 has acted without any jurisdictionbecause, at no stage, any annual rateable value was fixed more than that ofRs. 2,10,570.00 less 10 per cent.
(10) In its counter affidavit, respondent no. 1 has given a very vaguereply, to the allegations, made by petitioners. It is alleged that petition is notmaintainable, as petitioners have alternative remedy by way of appeal, as provided under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act. On merits, respondent No. 1 has alleged that extensive additional constructions, renovations at site,called for revision of rateable value. Respondent no. 1 is fully empowered to effect the recovery of house tax. The assessment of the rateable value for each year is independent and it has no relevancy for the previous or coming years. It is further alleged that the assessed had not filed objections, to any of the impugned assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 and that the notices were issued to theassessed, as per municipal records.
(11) In its reply, respondent No. 1 has’ not given the true facts. It is not mentioned, as to what was the increased annual rateable value, for the year1986-87 and onward and as to when the same was assessed. It is also not mentioned as to whom, the notice was issued. Even, it is not stated as to what is the annual rateable value of the property.
(12) It is not disputed that the original owners made construction/alterations and additions in the various floors of the property, with the sanction of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 then proposed to increase the annual rate able value from Rs. 6732.00 to Rs. 19,45,000.00 per annum. This annual rate able value was assessed for the year 1982-83. It is also not disputed that this Court in writ petition No. 801 of 1984, quashed the annual rateable value,so fixed by respondent no. 1, and directed it to assess the same, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.
(13) Vide letter dated 1/07/1986, respondent no. 1 informed the original owners that the High Court, vide its order dated 23/05/1985, had quashed the assessment, finalised by the N.D.M.C. and that vide its resolutionNo. 27 dated 1/07/1986, had approved the proposal for assessment for thatyear. The annual rateable value, so proposed for that year, was Rs. 2,10,570.00less 10 per cent. The house tax on that amount comes to Rs. 23,689/13. Same annual rateable value was proposed and assessed for the subsequent years,namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85, vide letter dated 1/07/1986.
(14) The main dispute in the present petition relates to the demand,made by respondent no. 1, for the year 1986-87 and sent to respondent no. 2for recovering the amount, from the rents, payable to petitioners.
(15) Vide letter dated 9/11/1987, annexure E, which is notdisputed, the Collector, N.U.M.C, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,30,250.91 on account of house tax, for the period April 1, 198 6/03/1981 from respondent no. 2, by adjusting the rent. Again, vide letter dated May 31′ 199)annexure K, Collector N.D.M.C. demanded a sum of Rs. 4,83,427,97 from respondent no. 2, by adjusting the rent for the same period. Either in the counter affidavit or during the arguments, respondent no. 1 has failed to explain this glaring contradiction in the records of the Committee. Even, respondent No. 1 has failed to disclose the basis, on which these two contradictory amounts have been claimed. What is the annual rateable value and how for the same year two different amounts, on a very high side, were being claimed. The allegations of petitioners, that for years, subsequent to the year 1986-87, same annual rate able value of Rs. 2,10.570.00 less 10 percent had been fixed, has not beendisputed. It may be pointed out that the challenge in the present petition is not to the assessment, but to the action of the Committee, which is withoutjurisdiction. To my mind. it appears that the N.D.M.C. has adopted the original proposal of the annual rateable value, which had been set aside by the HighCourt, vide judgment dated 23/05/1985.
(16) There is another aspect of the matter. Now, the properties have been mutated in the names of petitioners. Admittedly, no notice has been given to petitioners for any years, for fixing the annual rateable value. Therefore any demand, is also without jurisdiction. As, the action of respondent no I is without jurisdiction, therefore, the present petition is maintainable.
(17) In my view, respondent no. 1 has not acted in accordance with law and, in fact, has acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the recordsMoreover, respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to give true facts and explain the various anamolies, as pointed out by petitioners.
(18) For the reasons given above, the petition is allowed and the demands of respondent no. 1, are quashed and set aside. Respondent no 1 is further directed to recover the amount, if any, on the basis of the rateable value of Rs. 2,10,570.00 less 10 per cent. For this, N.D.M.C. will send a demand separately to petitioners. However, respondent no. 1 is at liberty to increase treatable value, if there is any addition or alteration, after following the provisions, as contained in Punjab Municipal Act. No order as to costs.