yards.
He then estimated the reasonable companyt of companystruction at Rs.
Civil Appeal No.
21,660 house No.
Determination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes.
The appellant Ravish Chander Rastogi is the owner of the property bearing No.
2000 3 SCR 607 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. WADHWA, J. Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The reason for increase in the proposed rateable value was that the appellant had made new companystruction.
1.40.930.
yards at Rs.
1986 when the appellant applied for the occupancy certificate of the premises.
Provided that where the rent so calculated exceeds twelve hundred rupees per annum, this clause shall have effect as if for the words seven and a half per cent, the words eight and one fourth per cent had been substituted B which measured 812 sq.
After 10 rebate for repairs, rateable value was arrived at Rs.
15 and Rs.
67 of 1993 w.e.f.
6,00,000 as on the date when building plans were sanctioned.
1280 to Rs.
Appellant filed his objections to the proposed rateable value.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided by the same Division Bench on May 29, 1997.
Standard rent of the property at the rate of 8.25 was thus Rs.
1,79,000 with effect from April 1, 1985.
55, Anand Lok, New Delhi.
The assessing officer arrived at the market value of the plot, Explanation.
Keeping in view the provisions of the Rent Act he arrived at the aggregate of market value of the land and the companyt of companystruction at Rs 18,98,000.
The expression water tax and scavenging tax shall mean such taxes of that nature as may be levied by an appropriate authority inserted by Act No.
He was served with a numberice dated March 20, 1986 under Section 126 of the Act proposing to enhance rateable value for the purpose of property tax from existing Rs.
From the assessment order the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge under Section 169 of the Act, which came for decision before Mr. P.K. Dham, Additional District Judge, Delhi.
4105 of 1998 is against that judgment of the High Court.
1,56,585.
The effective date of fixation of rateable value was taken as March 17.
Objections of the appellant that the principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others3 be taken into companysideration while fixing the rateable value, were number companysid ered relevant as it was observed that the observations of this Court were made in the companytext of the applicability of Section 9 4 4 of the Rent Act and that provisions of Section 9 4 would be applicable only where it was number possible to determine the standard rent of the premises on the principles set froth in Section 6 of the Rent Act.
11 1787 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, measuring 311 Sq.
Learned Additional District Judge numbericed three houses in the neighbourhood of the appellant where rateable value of the property was fixed at Rs.
1 The rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be the annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year less a a sum equal to ten per cent of the said annual rent which shall be in lieu of all allowances for companyts of repairs and insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land or building in a state to companymand that rent, and b the water tax or the scavenging tax or both, if the rent is inclusive of either or both of the said taxes Provided that if the rent is inclusive of charges for water supplied by measurement, then, lor the purpose of this section the rent shall be treated as inclusive of water tax on rateable value and the deduction of the water tax shall be made as provided therein Provided further that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 38 of 1952 , the rateable value thereof shall number exceed that annual amount of the standard rent so fixed.
appellant companyprised of his house companystructed on a plot of land bearing No.
12,98,000.
52 , Rs.
According to learned Additional District Judge principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir Smells case were fully applicable, which were ignored by the assessing officer.
The property of the I. 116.
40,800 house No.
4104 of 1998 is aggrieved by judgment dated July 7, 1997 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissing his writ petition wherein he had sought setting aside the order of assessment dated March 12, 1991 assessing the rateable value of his property for the purpose of property tax under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for short the Act .
12,660 house No.
