Airports Authority of India v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. This Writ Petition urges several grounds. However, in view of the order we propose, an elaborate discussion of the facts is not essential. The Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a statutory body set up under the Airports Authority ofIndia Act, 1994. It owns several properties inter alia including the lands and buildings which are part of the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL). When filed, this petition questioned the fixation of Rental Value (RV) for the period 1988-2004. That issue had a legal history in the sense that previous determinations became subject matter ofappeals. The appellate Court, i.e. the designated District Judge, by an order on 02.07.1999, remitted the matter for reconsideration pointedly referring to two specific aspects, i.e. the true cost of construction of the buildings and the other, the complex set up by the AAI and the market value of the + 2018:DHC:8525-DB land.

2. On the latter aspect, it was observed that the primary material in the form of contemporaneous sale deeds and adjoining lands were not available. The AAI apparently had also raised another important aspect as to the true character and nature of the places given to other airlines which used its fecilities on limited license basis. The AAl contended that the transaction was a license and that ihe premises in the land was completely under iis control and it was maintaining all the facilities provided. The rem.and order was questioned by the respondent MCD before this Court in a Writ Petition which was disposed of on 11.02.2004. The MCD's contentions were rejected. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (AO) was obliged to proceed fuither and fix the RV. This exercise was completed on 30.03.2006. •

3. In the interregnum, with eftect from 01.04.2004, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [hereafter "the.1957 Act"] so far as it related to levy and collection of property tax was overhauled witli spate of amendments, histead of the RV which depended on the value of land and the construction thereof, the new Unit Area Method (UAM) of determining the Annual Value (AV) depended largely upon the assessment of properties based upon covered space, having regard to the locality or localities concerned, each of which were categorised through an elaborate process. For the period 01.04.2004 onwards, the AAl contends in these proceedings that the principles applicable to "airports", especially with respect to how AV is to be fixed for different spaces and areas, especially the constructed area and also with respect to the treatment of vacant land tax ibr purposes in tiiat regard under Section 114C needed to be determined. It faults the impugned order for the period 01.04.2004 to 03.05.2006 on this aspect. It is urged more particularly, that in an airport, the bulk of the area is deemed to be an "open area", i.e. as in DIAL which has over 3!/2 thousand acres falling within the municipal areas, the bulk of it would not be constructed and in fact the construction would be only to the extent of around one percent. It is thus contended that the bye-law 4 which also pertains to collection of property tax, is virtually rendered unworkable and appropriate principles have to be evolved in this regard. Learned counsel highlights that the demand for setting-up of an Anomaly Committee in terms of Section 116K of the 1957 Act was made, but was not acceded to.

4. The MCD argues that each of the aspects urged is capable of consideration by the appellate authority and consequently this Court should not consider the feasibility of giving evidence with respect to the value of land and the cost of construction which are essentially factual aspects. As far as the question of Base Unit Value of the constructed portions and other levies thatthe AAI might be subjected lo, learned counsel urges that there is no bar for the appellate authority to go into these aspects to make an appropriate determination. She further contests that the Municipal Valuation Committee (MVC) in fact categorised the lands that are now part of the airport and are under or controlled by the AAI as falling in •categories G and H and other categories depending on their location. It is contended, therefore, that the question of constitution of Anomaly Committee does not arise.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's grievance with respect to the period upto 01.04.2004 are on three aspects - (i) true value of land (on the basis of primary material, a remand was ordered in 1999 after which the AAI appears to have such material before the assessing authority); the second aspect relates to the cost of construction and the nianner of its treatment over the years for the period 1988-2004 and the third is with respect to the treatment of the spaces given out on licenses by the AAI.

6. • For the period post 01.04.2004, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate authority should consider all aspects urged by the AAI. including as to the correct principles to be applied for attracting benefit of bye law 4.

7. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remitled foi' consideration of the appeal which shall be hereafter filed by AAI within eight weeks, ai-ticulating all the necessary groinids, 1 consideration by the appellate authority. It is open to the respondent MCD to urge all grounds, including opposition to any of the grounds urged by the AAI. It is furthermore clarified that for decision on these questions, a fresh pre-deposit is not necessary. The appellate authority shall consider the merits of the appeal and decide il in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of filing of the appeal. No flirther balance amouni shall be recovered in the interregnum. It is also open to the AAI to urge that a preliminary determination as to the AV for the period 01.04.2004 to 03.05.2006 be carried out first so as to enable it to exercise its option under Section 116G(2) of the 1957 Act. Likewise, itis open to the MCD to urge any opposition in this regard.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aboveterms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

IkjX APRIL 05, 2018

A. K. CHAWLA, J