Judgment:
ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J
1.This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th October, 1994.
2. The appellant sought quashing of the notice dated 30th March, 1992 issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') proposing amendment to the assessment list in respect of his property A-9/32, Vasant Vihar for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The learned Single Judge found the notice as inoperative and incapable of being acted upon, subject, to the issuance of a proper notice giving adequate reasons for the proposal to enhance the rateable value.
3. The appellant, who appears in person, has advanced several contentions before us in support of his appeal. We do not propose to deal with each one of his contentions as the appeal can be disposed of on a short point viz. the notice claimed to have been issued by the concerned authority and alleged to have been served on the appellant was not in keeping with sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act. At this stage it will be convenient to set out sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time. The provision reads as under:-
'(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) before making any amendment to the assessment list for the years commencing on the 1st day of April 1988, 1st day of April 1989 and 1st day of April 1990 under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall give to any person, affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month at any time before the 1st day of April, 1992, that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objection which may be made by such person.'
4. The plain meaning of the aforesaid provision is that the Commissioner, MCD is required to give by 1st April, 1992 one month's prior notice before making any amendment to the assessment list for the year commencing on the first day of April 1988, 1st day of April 1989 and 1st day of April, 1990 under sub-section (1) of section 126 of the Act. It is not disputed by the respondent that the notice was issued and served on the appellant only on March 30, 1992 without giving basis for the proposal to enhance the rateable value. Sub-section (3) of section 126 requires the Commissioner to consider the objections, if any, to the notice. In case no basis for the proposal to enhance the rateable value are furnished to the notice, what objections can he file thereto? A notice without specifying the basis for the proposal to amend the rateable value would negate the right of the notice to file objections to the notice. Since in the instant case the notice claimed to have been served by the respondent on the appellant does not disclose any basis or reason for the proposal to enhance the rateable value, the same cannot be countenanced in law. The notice placed on record is in clear infraction of sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act. At this stage it needs to be noticed that the appellant denies to have received the alleged notice. Without going into the question whether or not the appellant received the notice, it appears to us that even if the notice which is claimed to have been served by the respondent on the appellant was actually received by the appellant, the same would be suffering from the aforesaid legal infirmity. Service of a proper notice under sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act is not a mere procedural requirement. It is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for making amendment to the assessment list for the years mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act. If no notice is issued, or if the notice issued is invalid, then the proceedings taken by the respondent without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. Since notice relied upon by the respondent is invalid, the proceedings initiated by the respondent for making the amendment to the assessment list for the years in question was incompetent. This being so the notice did not have any legal force and was thereforee, required to be quashed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge instead of quashing the notice declared the same to be inoperative and incapable of being acted upon, subject to the issuance of a proper notice giving adequate reasons for the proposal to enhance the rateable value. According to the command of sub-section (3) of section 126 of the Act, notice could have been given within the period of limitation prescribed therein. Service of a valid notice by 1st of April, 1992 being a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent no fresh notice after that date can be given.
5. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. The notice dated March 30, 1992 is hereby quashed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above.