RAM CHANDRA SRIVASTAVAversusCHAIRMAN, DDA AND ANR.

                     RAM CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA                                  A
                                    v.
                     CHAIRMAN, DOA AND ANR.

                          NOVEMBER 22, 2006

              [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]                         B


     Property Laws-Service Chcrge and rent-Levy of-Challenged-Levy
upheld by Courts below-On appeal, held: Validity of the levy should have
been considered by Courts below determining the correlation between the      C
charges levied and value of service provided-Grievance of ground rent also
should have been considered in detail-Hence, matter, remitted to High
Court for fresh consideration-Taxation-Fee.

      Service charge levied by the respondent-Authority and imposition of
ground rent by it was challenged in a Writ Petition. Single Judge of the High D
Court dismissed the same. The Writ Appeal thereagainst was dimissed by
Division Bench of High Court holding that the Single Judge had examined
the aspect of property tax which had no concern with the services provided by
the Authority and that about the ground rent Single Jude had taken into
consideration the facts and explanation put forth by the Authority and . E
accounting practice was found to be not unscientific. Hence the present appeal

      Allowing the appeal and remitting it to High Court for fresh
consideration, the Court

       HELD: The impugned judgment is a cryptic judgment, and the matter F
in dispute has not been considered by it properly. In particular, 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 G
considered in detail the appellant's grievance rgarding the ground rent._
                                                                 (278-F-H)

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5146 of2006.
     From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11-2-2005 of the High Court     H
                                   277
    278                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 1045/2004 in C.W.P. No. 62/2004.
          Ram Chandra Srivastava, Appellant-In-Person.
                                                                                     ..,
          Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.), Sanjay Sen and Praveen Swarup
    for the Respondents.                                                             f-
B
          The Judgment of the Court was Delivered by

          MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.

          This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and Order
C   dated I 1.2.205 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.

D         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
E          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".
F         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 DOA was valid, considering the fact that service charge is a
G                                                a
    fee and not a tax and hence ther~ should be 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.
H
         RAMCHANDRASRIVASTAVAv.CHARIMAN,DDA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.]            279

      In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 11.2.2005 is set   A
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,
anci dealing with the contentions of the appellant.

     The appeal is allowed. No costs.                                            B
K.K.T.                                                       Appeal allowed.