ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1 Rule.
The petitioner MCD has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 3.12.1997, by which appeal was allowed against assessments orders dated 21.1.1994 and 8.11.1995. The assessments determining the rateable value of property bearing No.G-3, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, were set aside and case remanded to Assessing Authorities.
2 By the assessment order dated 21.1.1994, the rateable value of the property was determined at Rs.99,500/- with effect from 20.3.1989, and vide assessment order dated 8.11.1995, it was determined at Rs.56,100/- with effect from 1.4.1994. The learned ADJ remanded the cases back for reassessment to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give the assessed a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
3 Before coming to the ground on which the impugned judgment dated 3.12.1997, is challenged, it may be noticed that the respondent had applied for rectification to the petitioner MCD and the MCD vide an order dated 9.6.1997, had rectified the assessments. Vide order dated 9.6.1997 the rateable value was determined at Rs.76,670/- with effect from 20.3.1989 and Rs.56,100/- with effect from 1.4.1994.
4 Curiously, neither the petitioner nor the respondent assessed brought to the attention of the appellate court the factum of this order dated 9.6.1997, by which the rectification had already been carried out. The respondent on his part claims that it was not aware of the said order. The petitioner claims that the order was, in fact, passed at the instance and upon the request of the respondent. Be it may, this fact was not brought to the attention of learned ADJ, who proceeded on the basis of orders which had been challenged before him in appeal and without taking into consideration the rectification already carried out.
5 By another application bearing C.M.No.13618/99, the petitioner sought to withdraw the prayer made originally for upholding of the rectification order and sought the quashing and upholding of assessment order dated 21.1.1994. Learned counsel now states that the application is not pressed by her. The same is dismissed as not pressed.
6 Counsel for both the parties after some deliberation request the Court that the matter may be disposed of in writ jurisdiction itself since the rateable value to be determined is of March, 1989. Besides the impugned order, itself has remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for assessment. Ms. Gupta in this connection submits that the exercise of remand would be a futility in as much as the nature of directions given by the ADJ have left no scope for any independent reconsideration of the matter by the Assessing Authority. In this view of the matter, counsel for both the parties pray that the matter be disposed of in writ jurisdiction finally, to avoid yet another round of protracted litigation.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr Narula initially submitted that since the appellate Court had no occasion to consider the rectification order, any challenge to the order of the Additional District Judge could not be based on the rectification order, as produced.
8 After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusing the assessment order as well as the rectification order, I find that the controversy between the parties is rather a limited one. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has no objection to accepting the rectification order dated 9.6.1997, subject only to the condition that in computing the rateable value of Rs.76,670/- with effect from 20.3.1989 as well as Rs.56,100/- with effect from 1.4.1994, cost of construction should be taken at Rs.5,56,190/- instead of Rs.6,44,110/-. Learned counsel for the respondent further concedes that notwithstanding the direction given by the Additional District Judge that the date of commencement of assessment be taken as 1.4.1994, he is agreeable to the RV as fixed with effect from 20.3.1989.
9 In support of his contention that the cost of construction should be taken at Rs.5,56,190/-, learned counsel submits that the assessed had produced the primary evidence in the form of Valuation Report giving the cost of construction at Rs.5,56,190/-. The valuation report took into account many specific facets of the individual construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner in opposing the valuation report submitted that the value computed was less than the amount computable based on CPWD index. Hence the report was not credible. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent had drawn my attention to Bye-law 2.3 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-laws, 1994, which reads as under:
“2(3)-The cost of construction shall be the actual amount spent on construction or the cost determined as per the scheduled rates of the Central Public Works Department (for short “C.P.W.D.”) for the cost of construction for similar constructions for the year in which the premises was constructed, whichever is higher. Where the difference between the cost disclosed and the cost as per C.P.W.D. rates is up to twenty per cent of the cost disclosed, the costs of construction disclosed shall be accepted. Cost of additions and improvements shall be determined in the same manner.”
Learned counsel submits that in the present case the difference between the cost of construction, as per the CPWD index and as per the valuation report, was less than 15 per cent. While it is true that as per the bye-laws with effect from 1994, the rationale would remain the same.
10 I am inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. The valuation report happened to be the primary evidence int eh instant case. The difference between the cost as per the valuation report and CPWD index was not such as should have resulted in rejection of the valuation report. This approach of ignoring differences up to 20% is in consonance with public policy as manifested in the Bye-laws of 1994 quoted above.
11 In view of the foregoing discussion, I uphold the computation by the Additional District Judge of the cost of construction at Rs.5,56,190/-. Let the rateable value be computed afresh by the Assessing Officer taking the rateable value on cost of construction at Rs.5,56,190/- for the dates 20.3.1989 and from 1.4.1994.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.