{"id":244680,"date":"2007-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007"},"modified":"2018-10-17T03:05:11","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T21:35:11","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3303 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nQimat Rai Gupta & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.    3303              OF 2007
\n[Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 3553 of 2005]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
1. \tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe meaning of the word ‘made’ occurring in sub-section (4) of
\nSection 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter
\ncalled and referred to,  for the sake of brevity,  as ‘the Act’), is in question in
\nthis appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.08.2004
\npassed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 162 of
\n2003, reversing the judgment and order dated 21.10.2002 passed by a
\nlearned Single Judge of the said court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBefore adverting to the question involved in this appeal, we may
\nnotice the basic fact of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tRespondents herein are the owners of a property bearing No.1\/2 of 1
\n(1&3) Part, Ram Kishore Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was proposed to
\nbe assessed for property taxes by the competent authority of Municipal
\nCorporation of Delhi, a notice wherefor was issued in March 1997 purported
\nto be under Section 126 of the Act to fix the rateable value thereof at
\nRs.50,00,000\/- with effect from 01.04.1996.  Respondents herein objected to
\nthe said proposal.  They filed various documents in support of their case
\nstating that  the property in question had jointly been purchased by Anil
\nGupta, Qimat Rai Gupta and Vinod Gupta by four separate deeds of sale for
\na total consideration of Rs.32,00,000\/-.  The market value of the land was
\nassessed by the assessee at  Rs. 89,93,100\/- comprising of the value of the
\nland at Rs.42,19,000\/- and cost of construction at Rs.51,00,000\/-.  The said
\nmarket value disclosed by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing
\nauthority.  The assessing officer upon hearing the respondents assessed the
\nvalue at Rs.1,40,90,100\/- and determined the rateable value therefor at Rs.
\n11,97,660\/- with effect from 01.04.1996.  Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
\nthe said order of assessment, Respondents preferred an appeal in the Court
\nof Additional District Judge, Delhi, in terms of Section 169 of the Act, inter
\nalia, on the ground that the order of assessment was barred by limitation.
\nBy reason of an order dated 14.12.2000, the appellate authority opined that
\nno amendment in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act could be
\nmade after lapse of period of three years from the end of the year in which
\nthe notice was given and as the notice in the case had been issued in the
\nperiod ending 31.03.1997,  the order of assessment could be made only upto
\n31.03.2000.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Now coming to the questions what is meaning of
\nword ‘made’ whether it has to be taken as a date of
\npassing the order or the date when it was communicated
\nto the party concerned.  The dictionary meaning of
\nword ‘made’ is built or formed.  This is discussed in
\nAIR 1956 Madras 79 wherein it has been held that term
\n‘made’ has to be liberally construed as the date on
\nwhich the order is communicated to the concerned
\nparties and reaches them.  Taking the same into
\nconsideration, the present order cannot be said to have
\nbeen communicated to the assessee\/appellants within
\nthree years which is illegal.  Accordingly, I set aside the
\nimpugned order dated 31.3.2000 being time barred.
\nThe property be assessed on the RV already in
\nexistence prior to the passing of order dated 31.3.2000.
\nNo order as to cost.  File be consigned to R\/R.”\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAppellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
\norder dated 14.12.2000 filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court,
\nwhich was marked as Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2002.  A  learned Single
\nJudge of the said Court allowed the said writ petition remanding the matter
\nto the appellate authority directing it to determine the question on merits and
\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
 6.\tRespondents field an intra-court appeal thereagainst.  By reason of the
\nimpugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2004, a Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court reversed the said decision of the learned Single Judge opining
\nthat the date of the order ‘made’ in terms of Section 126(4) of the Act
\nshould be taken to be the date when the same was communicated to the
\nassessee and not the one when it was signed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tBefore embarking on the question involved in this appeal, we may
\nplace on record that the order of assessment was signed on 15.03.1999 and
\nthe same was diarized in the despatch register on 31.03.1999.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to
\nthe Municipal Government of Delhi.  Chapter VIII of the said Act provides
\nfor taxation.  Levy of property taxes is envisaged under sub-section (1) of
\nSection 113 of the Act.  Section 114 provides for the components of
\nproperty tax.  Section 114A provides for building tax. Section 114C provides
\nfor vacant land tax.  Section 123A provides for submission of returns.
\nSection 123B provides for self-assessment and submission of return.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAppellant has, thus, a statutory power to impose property tax.
\nSection 124 of the Act provided for assessment list, sub-section (1) whereof
\nreads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
\nCorporation shall cause an assessment list of all lands
\nand buildings in Delhi to be prepared in such form and
\nmanner and containing such particulars with respect to
\neach land and building as may be prescribed by bye-
\nlaws.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tSection 126 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to amend the
\nassessment list in terms of  one or the other modes provided for therein.
\nSub-section (2) thereof provids for giving an opportunity to the assessee of
\nbeing heard before an order of amendment is made. Sub-section (3) of
\nSection 126 obligats the Commissioner to consider the objections which
\nmay be made by such persons.  Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 126
\nreads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“(4) \tNo amendment under sub-section (1) shall
\nbe made in the assessment list in relation to <\/p>\n
xxx\t\t\txxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe year commencing on the 1st day of April,
\n1988 or any other year thereafter, after the expiry of three
\nyears from the end of the year in which the notice is
\ngiven under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case
\nmay be.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
\nappearing on behalf of the appellant,  submitted that the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the judgment of the
\nlearned Single Judge insofar as it proceeded on the premise that the
\nexpression ‘made’ occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Act
\nwould necessitate communication of the order.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIt was urged that a distinction must be made between
\n‘communication’ of the order  and making thereof inasmuch as whereas
\n‘communication’ may be necessary so as to enable an assessee to prefer an
\nappeal against the order of assessment but only signing of the order would
\nsubserve the purpose of saving the period of limitation prescribed therein
\nand in that view of the matter the period of three years prescribed under sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 126 being the period of limitation,  the expressions ‘no
\namendment under sub-section (1) shall be made’ should be given a liberal
\ninterpretation.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Collector of
\nCentral Excise, Madras v. M\/s M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu<\/a>  [1992
\nSupp. (1) SCC 471].\n<\/p>\n
13.\tMr. P. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, contended that the said Act  having been
\nenacted for the purpose of controlling the abuse of power on the part of the
\nCommissioner, the same should be given a purposive meaning so as to fulfil
\nthe purport and object of the legislation.  Reliance in this behalf has been
\nplaced on Surendra Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a> [AIR 1954
\nSC 194], Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition
\nOfficer and Another<\/a> [AIR 1961 SC 1500] and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran
\nVaidhyan Balan and Another<\/a> [(1999) 7 SCC 510].\n<\/p>\n
14.\tCommissioner in terms of the provisions of the said Act exercises a
\nstatutory power.  A proceeding initiated for the purpose of amending the
\nassessment list is a quasi judicial one. Commissioner of the Municipal
\nCorporation is a statutory authority. The terms and conditions of his
\nappointment are governed by Section 54 of the Act.  He can be appointed
\nonly by the Central Government.  The power of amendment can be exercised
\nat any time, as would appear from sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act;
\nthe only limitation therefor being that a fresh order would not relate back to
\nthe end of the financial year in which the notice is issued.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIndisputably, the Parliament did not intend to confer unbriddled power
\non the Commissioner to amend the assessment list.  For that purpose only a
\nperiod within which the jurisdiction is to be exercised was contemplated,
\nnamely, before the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which
\nthe notice is given, but the same would not mean that the restriction imposed
\nshould be given a restricted meaning so as to narrow down the scope thereof
\nany further.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn interpreting a provision dealing with limitation, a liberal
\ninterpretation in a situation of this nature should be given.  Although an
\norder passed after expiry of the period of limitation fixed under the statute
\nwould be a nullity, the same would not mean that a principle of
\ninterpretation applied thereto should not be such so as to mean that not only
\nan order is required to be made but the same is also required to be
\ncommunicated.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWhen an order is passed by a high ranking authority appointed by the
\nCentral Government, the law presumes that he would act bona fide.  Misuse
\nof power in a  situation of this nature, in our opinion, should not be readily
\ninferred.  It is difficult to comprehend that while fixing a period of
\nlimitation, the Parliament did not visualise the possibility of abuse of power
\non the  part of the statutory authority.  It advisedly chose the word ‘made’
\nand not ‘communicated’.  They, in ordinary parlance, carry different
\nmeanings.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tEven if a statute requires strict interpretation, words thereto would not
\nbe added.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe word ‘made’ is past and past participle of the word ‘make’ which
\nmeans “cause to exist or come about; bring about or perform”  [See Concise
\nOxford English Dictionary, 10th Edition].\n<\/p>\n
 20.\tIn P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, page
\n2822, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
“Made. A receiving order or other order of Court is
\n“made” on the day it is pronounced, not when it is
\ndrawn up. [In re Manning (1885) 30 Ch D 480. See
\nalso 4 All 278: 2 AWN 26.\n<\/p>\n
***\t\t\t***\t\t\t***
\nThe word ‘made’ in this rule might refer to the
\nproclamation of sale as well as the announcement
\nof the sale, as it says that it shall be made and
\npublished in the manner provided by the Rule
\n54(1).  The word ‘made’ cannot be taken to
\ninclude the preparation of proclamation of sale.
\nSeshatiri Aiyar v. Valambal Ammal, AIR 1952
\nMad 377, 381 [O. XXI, R. 54(1). C.P.C. (5 of
\n1908)]
\n***\t\t\t***\t\t\t***
\nAn order by a Chancery judge in Chambers is
\n“made” not when it is pronounced, but when it is
\nsigned and entered, or otherwise perfected
\n(Heatley v. Newton, 19 Ch. D. 326)”\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThe meaning of a word, it is trite, would depend upon its text and
\ncontext.  It will also depend upon the purport and object it seeks to achieve.
\nWith a view to understand the proper meaning of the said word, we may
\nnotice the decisions cited at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn Surendra Singh (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court while
\nconsidering the provisions of Section 369 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1898 opining that a judgment being a declaration of the mind of
\nthe court as it is at the time of pronouncement,  made a distinction between a
\ncivil case and a criminal case, stating :\n<\/p>\n
“10. In our opinion, a judgment within the
\nmeaning of these sections is the final decision of the
\ncourt intimated to the parties and to the world at large by
\nformal “pronouncement” or “delivery” in open court. It is
\na judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way.
\nSmall irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or
\nthe mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of
\nthe thing must be there : that can neither be blurred nor
\nleft to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All
\nthe rest – the manner in which it is to be recorded, the
\nway in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the
\nsealing, all the rules designed to secure certainty about its
\ncontent and matter – can be cured; but not the hard core,
\nnamely the formal intimation of the decision and its
\ncontents formally declared in a judicial way in open
\ncourt. The exact way in which this is done does not
\nmatter. In some courts the judgment is delivered orally or
\nread out, in some only the operative portion is
\npronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after
\ngiving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the
\ntable for a given number of days for inspection.”\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn view of the fact that in that case one of the judges expired before
\nsigning of the judgment prepared by the brother Judge, it was held  therein
\nthat the same did not constitute a judgment of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tIn Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), the award of a Collector
\nmade under the Land Acquisition Act was treated to be fructified when the
\nsame was communicated on the premise opining that an award was an
\n‘offer’ made by the Collector on behalf of the Government  to the owner of
\nthe property and, thus, the date of the award cannot be determined solely by
\nreference to the time when the award was signed by the Collector or
\ndelivered by him in his office, it must involve the consideration of the
\nquestion as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or
\nconstructively.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tIn K. Bhaskaran (supra), a notice required to be given in terms of
\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was construed
\nliberally, stating :\n<\/p>\n
\t“19. In Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘giving of notice’
\nis distinguished from ‘receiving of the notice.’ (vide page\n<\/p>\n
621) “A person notifies or gives notice to another by
\ntaking such steps as may be reasonably required to
\ninform the other in the ordinary course, whether or not
\nsuch other actually comes to know of it.” A person
\n‘receives’ a notice when it is duly delivered to him or at
\nthe place of his business.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. If a strict interpretation is given that the drawer
\nshould have actually received the notice for the period of
\n15 days to start running no matter that the payee sent the
\nnotice on the correct address, a trickster cheque drawer
\nwould get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by
\ndifferent strategies and he could escape from the legal
\nconsequences of Section 138 of the Act. It must be borne
\nin mind that the Court should not adopt an interpretation
\nwhich helps a dishonest evader and clips an honest payee
\nas that would defeat the very legislative measure.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In Maxwell’s ‘Interpretation of Statues’ the
\nlearned author has emphasized that “provisions relating
\nto giving of notice often receive liberal interpretation,”
\n(vide page 99 of the 12th edn.) The context envisaged in
\nSection 138 of the Act invites a liberal interpretation for
\nthe person who has the statutory obligation to give notice
\nbecause he is presumed to be the loser in the transaction
\nand it is for his interest the very provision is made by the
\nlegislature. The words in Clause (b) of the proviso to
\nSection 138 of the Act show that payee has the statutory
\nobligation to ‘make a demand’ by giving notice. The
\nthrust in the clause is on the need to ‘make a demand’. It
\nis only the mode for making such demand which the
\nlegislature has prescribed. A payee can send the notice
\nfor doing his part for giving the notice. Once it is
\ndespatched his part is over and the next depends on what
\nthe sendee does.”\n<\/p>\n
[See C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.<\/a> 2007 (7) SCALE 380]\n<\/p>\n
26.\tThe question, however, in our opinion, stands concluded by a three-
\nJudge Bench of this Court in M\/s M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu
\n(supra), wherein Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Bench succinctly stated the
\nlaw thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t“12. It may be seen therefore, that, if an authority
\nis authorised to exercise a power or do an act affecting
\nthe rights of parties, he shall exercise that power within
\nthe period of limitation prescribed therefor. The order or
\ndecision of such authority comes into force or, becomes
\noperative or becomes an effective order or decision on
\nand from the date when it is signed by him. The date of
\nsuch order or decision is the date on which the order or
\ndecision was passed or made: that is to say when he
\nceases to have any authority to tear it off and draft a
\ndifferent order and when he ceases to have any
\nlocuspaetentiae. Normally that happens when the order or
\ndecision is made public or notified in some form or when
\nit can be said to have left his hand. The date of
\ncommunication of the order to the party whose rights are
\naffected is not the relevant date for purposes of
\ndetermining whether the power has been exercised within
\nthe prescribed time\t.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“18. Thus if the intention or design of the statutory
\nprovision was to protect the interest of the person
\nadversely affected, by providing a remedy against the
\norder or decision any period of limitation prescribed with
\nreference to invoking such remedy shall be read as
\ncommencing from the date of communication of the
\norder. But if it is a limitation for a competent authority to
\nmake an order the date of exercise of that power and in
\nthe case of exercise of suo moto power over the
\nsubordinate authorities’ orders, the date on which such
\npower was exercised by making an order are the relevant
\ndates for determining the limitation. The ratio of this
\ndistinction may also be founded on the principle that the
\nGovernment is bound by the proceedings of its officers
\nbut persons affected are not concluded by the decision.”\n<\/p>\n
27.\tA distinction, thus, exists in the construction of the word ‘made’
\ndepending upon the question as to whether the power was required to be
\nexercised within the period of limitation prescribed therefor or in order to
\nprovide  the person aggrieved to avail remedies if he is aggrieved thereby or
\ndissatisfied therewith.  Ordinarily, the words ‘given’ and ‘made’ carries the
\nsame meaning.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tAn order passed by a competent authority dismissing a Government
\nservant from services requires communication thereof as has been held in
\n[See State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika<\/a>  – AIR 1966 SC 1313], but an
\norder placing a Government servant on suspension does not require
\ncommunication of that order.  [See State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram<\/a> –  AIR
\n1970 SC 214].  What is, therefore, necessary to be borne in mind is the
\nknowledge leading to the making of the order.  An order ordinarily would be
\npresumed to have been made when it is signed.  Once it is signed and an
\nentry in that regard is made in the requisite register kept and maintained in
\nterms of the provisions of a statute, the same cannot be changed or altered.
\nIt, subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, attains finality.
\nWhere, however, communication of an order is a necessary ingredient for
\nbringing an end-result to a status or to provide a person an opportunity to
\ntake recourse of law if he is aggrieved thereby; the order is required to be
\ncommunicated.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tThe Division Bench of the High Court, in our opinion, proceeded on a
\nwrong premise insofar as it misconstrued and misinterpreted the word
\n‘made’ in the context of sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Act opining
\nthat the power can be misused by the Commissioner.  The Division Bench,
\nwith respect,  failed to notice that there exists a presumption that the official
\nact is presumed to have been done in regular course of business.  There also
\nexists a presumption that a statutory functionary  would act honestly and
\nbona fide.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tWe are, therefore, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to follow
\nthe line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court that
\nunless the order is communicated, it should be deemed to have not been
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
31.\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
\nsustained, which is set aside accordingly and that of the learned Single Judge
\nis restored.  The appeal is allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3303 of 2007 PETITIONER: Municipal Corporation of Delhi RESPONDENT: Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3442,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007"},"wordCount":3442,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007","name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T21:35:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-qimat-rai-gupta-ors-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors on 27 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244680","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}