Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Dictate Property Tax Assessment Methodology: Delhi High Court Dismisses Khan Market Welfare Association's Petition
The Association filed a writ petition challenging NDMC’s post-2019 property tax assessment regime, alleging that similar commercial properties were assigned vastly different rateable values using inconsistent methods.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Shail Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association seeking directions to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to formulate and implement a uniform methodology for determining rateable value and assessing property tax across its jurisdiction.
The Bench held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to compel a statutory authority to exercise its administrative discretion in a specific manner or to substitute the court's view on policy and methodology for that of the competent authority.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain observed, “Such a direction cannot ordinarily be issued in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The determination of the methodology to be adopted for assessment of rateable values, so long as the authority acts within the statutory framework, involves the exercise of statutory and administrative functions entrusted to the authority by the legislature. The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority. The principle is not that the exercise of statutory power is immune from judicial review, rather, it is that judicial review is directed towards the legality of the exercise of power and not towards the Court itself undertaking the function entrusted to the statutory authority”.
“…The jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked for creation of such an institutional mechanism merely because the Petitioner alleges irregularities in the functioning of a statutory authority…”, the Bench further noted
Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal appeared for the petitioner and Raghvendra Upadhyay, PC appeared for the respondent.
The Khan Market Welfare Association filed a writ petition challenging NDMC’s post-2019 property tax assessment regime, alleging that similar commercial properties were assigned vastly different rateable values using inconsistent methods after the 2009 Bye-laws were struck down.
The association alleged that following the Supreme Court's invalidation of the 2009 Dual Method Bye-laws in NDMC v. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi, NDMC continued to apply disparate yardsticks, including Unit Area Method (UAM) principles, actual rent, comparable rent, and historical valuations, leading to wide, inexplicable disparities among similarly situated properties.
Therefore, it sought court directions compelling NDMC to adopt a uniform rateable value methodology, set up an expert committee to probe assessment irregularities, and strictly enforce the statutory provisions of the NDMC Act.
Addressing the maintainability of writ petitions by trade bodies, the High Court clarified that an association cannot maintain a writ petition solely by aggregating the personal grievances of its individual members, unless it establishes that the independent rights of the association itself have been infringed or the petition satisfies public interest litigation parameters.
Furthermore, the Bench emphasized that remedies under the NDMC Act remain fully preserved. The dismissal of a generalized challenge to the assessment mechanism does not preclude individual assessees from challenging specific property tax assessments, arbitrary valuations, or statutory delays through the appropriate appellate channels provided under the governing statute.
“The Petitioner must, therefore, demonstrate not merely an interest in proper assessment or in the performance of the statutory functions of the Respondents, but a legal and judicially enforceable right corresponding to a legal duty which the Respondents have failed to perform. The material placed before the Court does not disclose such a right in respect of the reliefs now pressed. The grievances articulated by the Petitioner may, at their highest, invite the statutory authority to examine whether its assessment practices conform to the governing provisions of the NDMC Act. They do not, in the form presented, warrant the issuance of a mandamus requiring this Court to formulate the methodology or constitute an administrative mechanism for that purpose”, the Bench noted.
Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the factual merits of NDMC's assessment practices, the Court held the prayers non-maintainable as framed and dismissed the writ petition. The Court explicitly reserved the rights of individual property owners to challenge individual assessment orders and rateable value determinations under the provisions of the NDMC Act.
Cause Title: Khan Market Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:6971-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv., Shaini Bhardwaj, Avichal Mishra, Advocates
Respondents: Raghvendra Upadhyay, PC; Amit Dhankhar, SPC; Yoginder Handoo, ASC; Raghav Alok, ASC, Ashwin Kataria, Khushboo Mittal, Garvit Solanki, Gaurav Vishwakarma, Aditya Aggarwal, Advocates.