Ram
Chandra Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Dda and Another [2006] Insc 839 (22 November 2006)
S.
B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
(Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9685 of 2005) MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
Leave
granted.
This
appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.2.205 of
the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 1045/2004 of CWP No. 62 of
2004.
Heard
the appellant in-person and Mr. V.B. Saharya, learned counsel for the DDA.
The
impugned judgment states as under:
"This
appeal is preferred against the order made by learned single Judge in W.P.(C)
No. 62/2004 on 28.9.2004. Learned single Judge has examined the aspect of
property tax which has no concern with the services provided by the Delhi
Development Authority.
About
the ground rent the learned single Judge has taken into consideration the facts
and the explanation put forth by the respondents and the accounting practice
was found to be not unscientific. In this view of the matter, we would not like
to interfere. Hence the appeal is dismissed".
In our
opinion the impugned judgment is a cryptic judgment, and with due respect to
the Division bench we feel that the matter in dispute has not been considered
by it properly. In particular, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench
should have carefully considered whether the service charge levied by the DDA
was valid, considering the fact that service charge is a fee and not a tax and
hence there should be a broad co-relation (though not an exact co-relation)
between the total service charges levied by the DDA and the value of the
services provided to the citizens.
The
Division Bench also should have considered in detail the appellant's grievance
regarding the ground rent.
In
that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 11.2.2005 is set aside and
the matter is remanded to the Division Bench for a fresh decision after hearing
the parties, in accordance with law. The Division Bench is requested to give a
more detailed judgment dealing with the matter in issue, and dealing with the
contentions of the appellant.
The
appeal is allowed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
