Delhi High Court - Orders
Shubha Bhattacharya And Anr vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 1 December, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 184/2022 & CM APPL. 518/2022
SHUBHA BHATTACHARYA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC for MCD
with Mr. Abhishek Singh,
Advocate, Mr. Jagvir Singh, JSA
MCD and Mr. Ashok Kumar, SSA,
MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.12.2023
1. By the order dated 02.11.2023, it was recorded as follows:
"1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a demand notice dated 24.08.2021. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ["MCD"] raised a demand for sum of Rs.1,02,506/- towards property tax in respect of their property [Flat No. B-6/43/1, Category MIG, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029] for the period from 2004-05 to 2020-21.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid charges could not be levied upon the property, as the petitioners purchased the property from the previous owners only under a Sale Deed dated 07.06.2019. He also relies upon Section 455 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which prohibits recovery after expiry of a period of three years after the dues became payable.
3. During the course of proceedings, the petitioners were permitted by an order dated 19.01.2022, to avail the benefit of amnesty scheme and deposit the required amount with the Corporation, subject to the final outcome of the petition and without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The petitioners have availed the scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 52,460/-. Even out of this amount, Mr. Tushar Sannu, W.P.(C) 184/2022 Page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2023 at 22:58:26 learned counsel for MCD, submits that the petitioner has made an excess deposit of Rs.27,806/-. He submits that MCD is agreeable to adjustment of the excess amount against the future property tax liabilities of the petitioners. MCD has also carried out mutation of the property in favour of the petitioners, consequent upon deposit as aforesaid.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take instructions as to whether the present case can be disposed of on the aforesaid basis, leaving the question of law urged by the petitioners open for adjudication in an appropriate case.
5. List on 01.12.2023."
2. Mr. Gaurav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that he has instructions to pursue the writ petition for a decision on the question of law pressed by the petitioners.
3. Issue Rule.
4. The Registry is directed to list the writ petition in the "Regular List" in its own turn.
PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 1, 2023 SS W.P.(C) 184/2022 Page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2023 at 22:58:26