Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 09.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 13.02.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 13.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5995/2025
LALIT MOHAN KAPUR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, SPC with
Ms. Shreya Jha, Ms. Supriya,
Mr. Varun Verma, Advs. for R-
2/UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 13622/2025
SAROJ TANDON SHOP 49 A .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pragya Priya, SPC with
Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Ms.
Shruti, Mr Divyodit, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 9
+ W.P.(C) 13654/2025
SAROJ TANDON FLAT NO 35 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
+ W.P.(C) 13655/2025
SAROJ TANDON SHOP 35 A ANDB .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
+ W.P.(C) 16720/2025
MAJOR S P MARWAH RETD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 9
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
+ W.P.(C) 6428/2025
MAJOR S P MARWAH AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms.
Ruchita Srivastava, Ms. Neha,
Mr Dev Aaseri, Advs. for R-
2/UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 6954/2025
GURVINDER SALUJA AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Ms.
Ruchita Srivastava, Advs. for
R-2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 9
+ W.P.(C) 7674/2025
MRS GAYATRI VACHANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNUCIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
+ W.P.(C) 7839/2025
POONAM BAHL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Sr. Central
Govt. Counsel With Mr.
Chaitanya Kumar, Advs. for R-
2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 9
+ W.P.(C) 8218/2025
SETH PROPERTIES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Nehmat Sethi,
Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj and Mr.
Adnan Naqash, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogendra Handoo, ASC,
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ASC, Mr.
Ravi Krishan Chandna, ASC,
Mr. Ashwin Kataria, ASC with
Mr. Suraj Gupta, Mr. Udbhav
K. Garg, Mr. Siddhant
Choudhary, Advs. for R-
1/NDMC.
Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC for R-
2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
REVIEW PET. 15/2026 in W.P.(C) 5995/2025
REVIEW PET. 19/2026 in W.P.(C) 13622/2025
REVIEW PET. 18/2026 in W.P.(C) 13654/2025
REVIEW PET. 11/2026 in W.P.(C) 13655/2025
REVIEW PET. 20/2026 in W.P.(C) 16720/2025
REVIEW PET. 13/2026 in W.P.(C) 6428/2025
REVIEW PET. 12/2026 in W.P.(C) 6954/2025
REVIEW PET. 14/2026 in W.P.(C) 7674/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 9
REVIEW PET. 17/2026 in W.P.(C) 7839/2025
REVIEW PET. 16/2026 in W.P.(C) 8218/2025
1. Through the present Review Petitions, the Review Petitioners
seek to review the order dated 04.12.2025 [hereinafter referred to as
‘Impugned Order’] passed by this Court, whereby the batch of Writ
Petitions filed by the Review Petitioners was dismissed.
2. The background facts, as noticed in the Impugned Order, may
be briefly recapitulated. The Writ Petitions were filed challenging a
Public Notice issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council [hereinafter
referred to as ‘NDMC’] inviting objections to the Assessment List for
the year 2025-2026. The principal grievance of the Petitioners was
directed against Note-2 appended to the Objection Form, which
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NDMC &
1
Ors. v. Association of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi & Ors. , and
indicated that assessments already accepted under the NDMC
(Determination of Annual Rent) Bye-Laws, 2009 would not be
reopened.
3. The Petitioners contended that the adoption of the Unit Area
Method [‘UAM’] for assessment was impermissible in view of the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, and that Note-2 was
contrary to the law declared therein. During the hearing of the Writ
Petitions, learned counsel appearing for NDMC, on instructions, made
a categorical statement that Note-2 stood withdrawn.
1
(2019) 15 SCC 303
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 9
4. In view of the said statement, this Court, while disposing of the
Writ Petitions, held that once the impugned Note-2 had been
withdrawn, no cause for interference survived. This Court further
declined to issue any pre-emptory writ on the basis of an apprehension
that NDMC may, in future, adopt an impermissible method of
assessment. It was also observed that, insofar as individual assessment
orders were concerned, the Petitioners had statutory remedies
available under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994
[hereinafter referred to as ‘NDMC Act’], including the appellate
remedy under Section 115 thereof.
5. In substance, the Review Petitioners are making an attempt to
stall the assessment of property tax. At this stage, it is relevant to note
that only a Public Notice inviting objections had been issued. No
general reassessment pursuant to the impugned Note-2 survives,
inasmuch as the Note itself stands withdrawn.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners submits
that the Impugned Order is liable to be reviewed on the ground that
this Court did not take into consideration Relief (c) sought in the Writ
Petitions, as well as sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the NDMC Act.
7. The said submission is misconceived. This Court, while passing
the Impugned Order, consciously confined itself to the stage at which
the proceedings stood, namely, issuance of a notice inviting
objections. This Court found that, at such a stage, no interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 9
particularly when the specific provision under challenge (Note-2) had
already been withdrawn.
8. Relief (c), as sought in the Writ Petitions, prayed for directions
to the Respondents to issue fresh notices under Section 77 of the
NDMC Act and thereafter proceed under Section 72 thereof strictly in
accordance with law. It is well settled that a writ court does not issue
directions to statutory authorities to follow the law, unless a concrete
violation is demonstrated. At the stage of issuance of a public notice
inviting objections, such directions would be clearly premature.
9. Similarly, the submission based on Section 72 of the NDMC
Act is a matter which is required to be examined by the
Respondent/NDMC while proceeding with the assessment of property
tax. Section 72 deals with amendment of the assessment list and
issuance of notice inviting objections. If, in a given case, there is any
infringement of Section 72, it would be open to the Review Petitioners
to raise such grievance before the Chairperson of the Committee
constituted for this purpose, or before the appropriate statutory forum,
in accordance with law.
10. It is trite law that the power of review is not an appellate power.
A review cannot be used as a forum to re-argue the case, nor can it be
invoked merely because another view is possible. No error apparent
on the face of the record, no discovery of new and important material,
and no other ground permissible in law has been made out to warrant
recall or review of the Impugned Order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 9
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, no ground for review of
the Impugned Order is made out. This Court, by the Impugned Order,
merely relegated the Review Petitioners to their appropriate statutory
remedies, considering the fact that only a notice inviting objections
had been issued. Though, in certain cases, assessment orders may
have been passed, the remedy of the aggrieved parties lies in making
representations, or availing appellate or revisional remedies before the
competent authorities, as provided under the NDMC Act.
12. The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
jai/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.02.2026
15:19:55
W.P.(C)5995/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 9