483 86, 471 Of 1980 etc Under Article 32 of the Constitution Rangarajan, S.C. Misra, M.S. Batta, Miss Kailash Mehta, Mrs. M. Quamruddin, B.B. Tawakley, Shrinath Singh, Mohan Pandey, Rajiv Datta, Miss Renu Gupta, K Garg, Mr. R. Shrivastava, D.R. Gupta, B.R. Kapoor, B.P Maheshwari, B. Dattar, K.B. Rohtagi and A. Subba Rao for the petitioners.
N. Sinha, Attorney General of India, P. Maheshwari, R B. Dattar and Miss Sieta Vaidlingam, for the respondents.
K. Mehta for Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI,J .
This group of writ petitions and appeals raise interesting questions of law in regard to determination of rateable value of certain categories of properties situate in the Union Territory of Delhi.
The questions are of great importance since they affect the liability of a large number of property owners in the Union territory of Delhi to pay property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
The appeals before us arise out of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging assessments made by the Municipal Corporation while the writ petitions fall broadly into two categories one category companysisting of writ petitions which were originally filed in the High Court of Delhi but were subsequently transferred to this Court, while the other companysisting of writ petitions which were filed directly in this Court.
So far as properties situate in the Union Territory of Delhi except New Delhi are companycerned.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WP.
