Delhi High Court Decision
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition submitted by the Khan Market Welfare Association, which sought a directive against the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to standardize the method for calculating property tax across its jurisdiction. The case, Khan Market Welfare Association v. UOI & Ors, was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain.
Areas Affected by the Ruling
NDMC’s jurisdiction includes reputable areas such as Connaught Place, Khan Market, and Chanakyapuri, all situated in the prestigious Lutyens’ Delhi. The association argued for a uniform valuation method for these areas until the Unit Area Method (UAM) was officially implemented. They also requested the establishment of an expert committee to investigate alleged frauds and discrepancies in the valuation process.
Court’s Rationale
The Bench emphasized the limitations of the court’s authority in directing a statutory body like the NDMC on formulating its valuation methodologies. The court stated, “The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority.” It clarified that judicial review should focus on the legality of the exercise of power rather than assuming the functions of a statutory authority.
Rejection of Additional Pleas
The request to form an expert committee to review the rateable value discrepancies was also rejected. The court ruled that such a directive would require the creation of an administrative mechanism not statutorily backed, which is beyond the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Arguments Presented
The Khan Market Welfare Association’s petition argued that the NDMC’s reliance on various methods, including actual rent, comparable rent, and historical values, led to significant disparities in tax liabilities for similar properties. However, NDMC responded that Section 63(1) of the NDMC Act does not mandate a fixed formula, and these methods are merely tools to ascertain the reasonable expected rent, which can vary based on property usage and status.
More Read
Court’s Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the petitioner did not establish any statutory duty that the NDMC neglected. Moreover, the court noted the issue of maintainability, as the alleged grievances were individual rather than collective, and thus could not be aggregated into a single claim by the association.
Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, along with Advocates Shaini Bhardwaj and Avichal Mishra, represented the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Advocates Raghvendra Upadhyay, Amit Dhankhar, among others.
