State of Kerala vs The New Delhi Municipal Committee

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus, prohibition or some other appropriate writ be issued to the New Delhi Municipal Committee quashing assessment of the annual value of Cochin House for the year 1953-54 fixed at Rs. 34,600/-. It is further prayed that if the assessment has been made by the resolution dated 31st March, 1953 of the respondent Committee, that resolution may also be quashed. As a consequential relief, it is prayed that the amount of house tax realized for the years 1953-54 and thereafter in excess of Rs. 825/- per annum, be refunded and in the alternative, it is prayed that the Committee be directed to decide the petitioner''s application dated the 30th December, 1963 made u/s 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act as applicable to Delhi on the merits, after giving an appropriate hearing to the petitioner''s representative.

It will only be necessary for the purpose of this petition to set out briefly the salient facts. The property in dispute at the time of its purchase was named as the Cochin House ''At the moment, it is known as ''Kerala House''. The property was purchased in the year 1336 by his Highness the Maharaja of Cochin from Sardar Bahadur Sobha Singh for the State of Cochin. After the States Re-organisation Act the property has devolved on the State of Kerala as the successor State to the Cochin State. The rental value of this property was assessed for purposes of house tax under the Punjab Municipal Act as applicable to Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Act, at Rs. 8,250/- and a house tax in the sum of Rs. 825/- per annum was levied by the New Delhi Municipal Committee. On the 6th February, 1953, the New Delhi Municipal Committee acting u/s 67 of the Act issued a notice to the State of Kerala to the effect that it was proposed to raise the annual value for the purposes of assessment of house tax from Rs. 8,250/- to Rs. 34,600/-. It is not disputed that the proposed enhancement was on the basis of section 3(l)(c) of the Act. Unfortunately, as is usual with the various State Governments in this country, no steps were taken by the Government to appear before the Municipal Committee on the appointed date and object to the assessment. On the contrary, a letter was written by the Chief Secretary of the State of Kerala to the Municipal Committee protesting against the proposed enhancement. This letter was replied to by the Municipal Committee by its letter dated the 14th of March, 1953 and it was indicated that the basis for enhancement had hem furnished in the notice dated the 6th February, 1953 already referred to. It may by mentioned that the date by which the objections u/s 67 had to be filed (Annexure ''A'') was 11th of March, 1953. On the basis of a resolution passed on 31st of March, 1953, the assessment regarding ''Kerala House'' was confirmed, that is the annual rental value was fixed at Rs. 3-1,600/- and a tax at the rate of 10 per cent was demanded from the petitioner. It may be mentioned at this stage that the building had been rented out to the International Labour Organisation at a rental of Rs. 7,950/- per annum. This organisation vacated the premises on 1st of July. 1958 long after the confirmation of the revised assessment of rental value for purposes of House tax it is not disputed and it is a fact that before the confirmation of the new assessment, the petitioner never appeared and questioned the same before the Municipal Committee. The only protest made by the petitioner to the proposed enhancement is to be found in its letter dated the 9th of March 1953. The petitioner, however moved the Deputy commissioner, Delhi, in appeal but the appeal was dismissed on the short round that it was barred by time. However on the 30th December, 1963, an application u/s 67 of the Act was made by the petitioner to the Municipal Committee, Delhi. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Municipal Committee that no order has been passed on this application. With regard to this application, there is an assertion made by the Municipal Committee in its return that the application was rejected. No order of rejection however has been brought to my notice and I therefore, proceed on the basis that the application u/s 67 of the Act has not been disposed of.

It is in this situation that the present petition was filed on 7th June, 1963. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enhancement of the annual letting value from, Rs. 8,250/- to Rs. 34,600/- is illegal and therefore, the resolution as well as the final order fixing the value at Rs. 34,600/ be quashed. He further urged that as the assessment is wholly without jurisdiction, this Court even after delay of 10 years should quash the same.

In the first instance, what has to be determined is whether the resolution of the Municipal Committee fixing the rental value at Rs. 34,600/- is without jurisdiction. Section 67 of the Act gives the Municipal Committee power to further amend assessment lists prepared u/s 66. Amendment could only be made, in case property has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake whether on the part of the Committee or of the assessee. The Committee took the view that the value of Rs. 8,250/- has been fixed by mistake and therefore, they were entitled to revise it u/s 67. Consequently, a notice was issued to the owner. Inspite of the notice, the owner never appeared before the Committee with the result that the assessment was revised and the proposed enhancement was confirmed.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision was made on the basis of section 3(1)(c) and that section 3(1)(c) has no application so far as the present premises are concerned. The revision could only be made u/s 3(1)(b). It is not necessary for me to determine the merits of this contention because even if this contention is accepted, all that is established is that a legal error has been committed. A legal error is not the same thing as an error of jurisdiction. The Committee had the jurisdiction u/s 67 of the Act to revise the assessment. In revising that assessment, it may or may not have committed the legal error. But if it had committed a legal error, the remedy was by way of an appeal or by a writ of certiorari to this Court. The remedy by way of an appeal was pursued but without success. But this court was not moved and the petitioner has waited for practically 10 years before coming to this Court. In this situation, I am not prepared to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, the learned counsel''s contention that the confirmed assessment for the year 1933-64 should be quashed, must be rejected.

The second contention raised by the learned counsel is that his application u/s 67 of the - Act made on 30th December, 1953 has not so far been disposed of and that a direction should issue to the Municipal Committee to dispose of the same. This argument raises two questions (1) whether such an application by the owner is competent u/s 67 of the Act? and if such an application is competent (2) whether the Committee is bound to decide it ? If no such application is maintainable by the owner, the argument does not arise. However, after going through section 67 of the Act, I am of the view that it does contemplate such an application by an owner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the Committee has not disputed that such an application by the owner is competent u/s 67. The only riders which the learned counsel for the Committee places on his concession is that while deciding the application, the Committee is not bound to hear the applicant, before disposing of the same. It cannot be disputed that section 67 or as a matter of that the sections dealing with the procedure for assessing rental value of property for purposes of house tax deal with citizens'' right to property and such assessments have a far reaching consequence so far as the owner is concerned. Thus the Committee while determining the question of assessment or its revision is acting as a quasi judicial tribunal. When an application is made to such a tribunal in accordance with law, it is not only the duty of the tribunal to decide the same but also to hear the applicant before deciding the same. This is the minimum requirement according to the rules of natural justice. Moreover, if an application by the owner is competent u/s 67 and it is not disputed that it is competent, it follows as a matter of law that the authority to whom it is to be made has to entertain it and decide it. See in this connection the observations of the Gujarat High Court in Ambala Shivlal v. Vin (D.M.) (1964) II L.L.J. 271 at page 275, which are as follows:

Where an Act confers jurisdiction it also grants impliedly the power of doing:

all such acts, or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution which canon is referred to in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, at p. 350.

That being so, I am clearly of the view that the Committee is not only required by law two dispose of the application but also to hear the applicant before disposing of the same. Therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is valid and must succeed. No other contention has been advanced.

For the reasons given above, this petition is partially allowed and it is directed that the Committee should dispose of the application dated the 30th December, 1953 after hearing the petitioner. The application should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and without any further delay. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition partially allowed.