JUDGMENT
1. The dispute revolves around property No. 3602, Ward No. 2, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. It was originally owned by the Joint Hindu Family of which Bal Mukand the present appellant, was the Karta and Manager. The property was mutated also in his name in that capacity property-tax bills were being issued in his
name. However, a change was brought about on April 1st, 1996 when the co-parceners executed a partition deed by virtue of which separate distinct portions fell to the share of each of the co-parceners making them the sole owners of their respective portions. Consequent upon the said partition Bal Mukand wrote a letter to the Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation bringing to his notice the partition deed. He also asked the authorities to send property tax bills separately. A request was admittedly also made for mutation on the basis of the said partition deed. It is not disputed that consequent upon that request mutation was effected keeping in view the share falling to each of the members of the earlier co-parcenery. However, despite all this the Municipal Corporation kept on sending property tax bills with regard to whole of the property only in the name of Bal Mukand. Needless to say, he protested. Unfortunately, those protestations also fell on deaf ears. Finding the Municipal Corporation unresponsive he filed a civil suit. The learned Subordinate Judge holding that since there was a partition and on the basis of the same, mutations having also taken place, bills with regard to whole of the property could not be sent only in the name of Bal Mukand. The Court thus issued a permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from recovering property tax for the entire property as it was before the partition from the plaintiff alone. It was however, made clear that the Municipal Corporation was at liberty to recover the arrears of property tax with respect to the suit property from Bal Mukand or any other member of his family for the period prior to the date of partition. It was then the turn of the Municipal Corporation to feel aggrieved and it lost no time in filing an appeal. The matter thus went before Shri O.P. Singla, Additional District Judge, Delhi. There the fortunes were reversed and the learned Addl. District Judge accepted the appeal and held that it was within the discretion of the Municipal Corporation to ask for entire property tax of the building from Bal Mukand alone. Finding that order unpalatable Bal Mukand preferred second appeal. ”
2. The Regular Second Appeal came up before this Court on April 12, 1978, The Court feeling that it did not raise any substantial question of law, dismissed it. Bal Mukand still remained undaunted. He went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that a substantial question of law did arise for determination before the High Court and that consequently, dismissal of the appeal in limine was not justified. The Court thus set aside the order of the High Court and directed this Court to proceed to dispose it of in accordance with law. The order was passed on August 14, 1978. It has come to be heard today.
3. As already noticed above, it is not disputed before me that a partition deed had been executed and that actually the property had been partitioned. It is also not disputed that intimation with regard to the same was given to the Municipal Authorities. Not only this, it is also common case of the parties that mutations on the basis of that partition had also been affected. The question that remains is as to whether in view of this Bal Mukand can stilt be held liable to pay property tax with regard to whole of the property as it stood before partition even after the date of mutation? Before I proceed to answer this question, I may hasten to add that it is common case of the parties that if at all Bal Mukand is to be made liable with regard to the portion which fell to his share it has to be from the date of the mutation and not from the date of the notice given by him with regard to the partition.
4. What is the answer to the question posed above? I feel it is provided by the Proviso to Section 132 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Let me reproduce whole of the provision. It runs as under :
“132. Premises owned by or let to two or more persons is severally to be ordinarily assessed as one property — Notwithstanding that arty land or building is owned by, or let to, two or more persons in severally the Commissioner shall for the purpose of assessing such land or building to properly taxes treat the whole of it as one property;
Provided that the Commissioner may, in inspect of any land or building which was originally treated as one property but which Subsequently passes on by transfer, succession or in any other manner to two or more persons who divide the same into several parts and occupy them in severally treat, subject to any bye-law made in this behalf, each such several part, or two or more of such several parts together, as a separate property and assess such part or parts to property taxes accordingly.”
5. A bare perusal of the proviso would go to show that when, as in the present case, a Building which was originally treated as one property is divided into several parts by way of a deed of partition which is accepted by the municipal authorities as genuine and is even acted upon then each such several part is to be treated as a separate property for purposes of property tax. In other words, the portion which has fallen to the share of Bal Mukand by way of partition though a part of the building which was originally treated as one property has now to be treated as separate property and requires to be assessed as such part to property taxes. This being the position, I feel that the second appeal needs to be accepted. However, before I proceed to complete the formality a few words need to be said. It is not disputed that Bal Mukand would be liable jointly and severally along-with the co-parceners with regard to the property tax to be recovered for the period before the date of mutation. Since a portion of the Building which was originally treated as one property has remained joint, it is also not disputed that with regard to that portion Bal Mukand would be jointly and severally liable with other owners.
6. With these observations, the second appeal is accepted. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The petitioner shall be liable to pay property tax only with regard to that separate part which has fallen to his share from the date of mutation. As regards the other co-owners also, though they are not before me, the Municipal Corporation would follow the principle emerging from this judgment. 7. Appeal allowed.