Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of review petitions seeking reconsideration of its earlier order that had declined to interfere with a Public Notice issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council inviting objections to the Assessment List for 2025–2026. The Court held that once Note-2 in the objection form — which had been challenged as contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling — was withdrawn, no cause for interference survived. It reiterated that review jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and cannot be used to re-argue the case.
Facts
Multiple writ petitions were originally filed challenging a Public Notice issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council inviting objections to the property tax Assessment List for 2025–2026. The grievance centered on Note-2 appended to the objection form, which referred to the Supreme Court judgment in NDMC v. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi (2019) and indicated that assessments already accepted under the 2009 Bye-Laws would not be reopened.
Petitioners argued that adoption of the Unit Area Method for property tax assessment was impermissible in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment. During the hearing, NDMC made a categorical statement that Note-2 stood withdrawn.
Recording this statement, the Court dismissed the writ petitions on 04.12.2025, holding that no further cause survived and that individual grievances could be pursued through statutory remedies under the NDMC Act, including appeal under Section 115.
Review petitions were thereafter filed challenging that dismissal order.
Issues
The principal issue was whether the earlier dismissal order warranted review on the ground that the Court allegedly failed to consider Relief (c) sought in the writ petitions and Section 72(2) of the NDMC Act.
The Court also examined whether any “error apparent on the face of the record” or any permissible ground under review jurisdiction existed.
A broader question arose: can a writ court issue pre-emptive directions to statutory authorities at the stage of mere issuance of a public notice inviting objections?
Petitioners’ arguments
The review petitioners contended that the Court overlooked Relief (c), which sought directions to NDMC to issue fresh notices under Section 77 and proceed strictly in accordance with Section 72 of the NDMC Act.
They argued that sub-section (2) of Section 72 had not been properly considered and that the assessment process was contrary to statutory requirements.
It was submitted that failure to adjudicate these aspects constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review.
Respondent’s arguments
NDMC opposed the review petitions, submitting that the original order consciously limited itself to the stage of proceedings — namely, issuance of a public notice inviting objections.
Since Note-2, the specific provision challenged, had already been withdrawn, the writ petitions had become infructuous.
It was further contended that statutory remedies under the NDMC Act were available, including objections before the designated authority and appellate remedies.
The review petitions, according to NDMC, amounted to an attempt to stall property tax assessment proceedings.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled principles governing review jurisdiction. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible or because a party seeks to re-argue the matter.
Under established jurisprudence, review lies only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or other limited grounds recognized in law.
The Court observed that it had consciously confined itself to the limited stage of issuance of a notice inviting objections. Once the impugned Note-2 was withdrawn, no subsisting cause of action remained warranting interference under Article 226.
Issuance of general directions to “follow the law” in the absence of a demonstrated violation would amount to premature judicial intervention.
Precedent analysis
While the judgment did not elaborate on specific precedents in detail, it applied settled review principles consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court — namely, that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be equated with appellate scrutiny.
The Court’s reasoning reflects established doctrine that writ courts refrain from intervening at show-cause or objection-notice stages unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality.
Further, the principle that statutory remedies must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was reaffirmed.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that Relief (c) sought by the petitioners — directions to follow Sections 72 and 77 of the NDMC Act — was premature. Courts do not issue advisory or pre-emptive writs directing authorities to comply with statutory provisions unless a concrete breach is demonstrated.
It noted that at the relevant stage, only a Public Notice inviting objections had been issued. If, in a given case, any violation of Section 72 occurs during assessment, aggrieved parties may raise objections before the Chairperson or pursue statutory appeals under Section 115.
The Court rejected the submission that Section 72(2) had been ignored. It held that the issue could be examined by the competent authority during assessment proceedings and did not justify review of the earlier order.
Finding no error apparent, no new evidence, and no permissible ground for review, the Court dismissed the petitions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed all review petitions, holding that the earlier order merely relegated petitioners to statutory remedies and declined interference at a premature stage. The Court reaffirmed that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-litigate or reopen issues already considered.
Implications
This ruling reinforces judicial restraint in tax assessment matters, particularly at the stage of issuance of notices inviting objections.
The decision underscores three key principles:
- Withdrawal of an impugned provision renders the challenge infructuous.
- Writ courts do not issue anticipatory directions absent concrete violation.
- Review jurisdiction is narrowly confined and not a substitute for appeal.
For property owners in NDMC areas, the judgment clarifies that grievances relating to assessment methodology must be raised through statutory mechanisms rather than pre-emptive writ petitions.
Case law references
- NDMC & Ors. v. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi & Ors. (2019) 15 SCC 303
Clarified principles governing assessment under the NDMC framework and interpretation of the 2009 Bye-Laws. - (Review principles applied as per settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on scope of review under Article 226.)
FAQs
1. Can a High Court review its own order simply because another view is possible?
No. Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other recognized grounds. It is not an appellate power.
2. Can courts interfere at the stage of a public notice inviting objections to property tax assessment?
Generally, no. Unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or manifest illegality, courts avoid interfering at preliminary stages. Statutory remedies must be exhausted.
3. What remedy is available against NDMC property tax assessments?
Aggrieved parties may file objections before the designated authority and avail appellate remedies under Section 115 of the NDMC Act.