Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
The Martin Burn Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Corporation of Calcutta, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 247 and 248 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Niren De, Additional Solicitor -General of India, (M/s. S. R. Banerjee and S. N. Mukerji, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
MUNICIPAL LAW - Valuation of premises for assessment of municipal rates - Method of valuation - Order of remand by High Court to Court of Small Causes for ascertaining annual value - Whether justified - Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Bengal Act III of 1923), Ss. 127, 131, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 164.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a rate-payer, objected to the valuation of its premises made by the respondent Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The appellant contended that the valuation should have been made under Cl. (a) of S. 127 of the Act, which prescribes the method of valuation based on the rent which the land or building might reasonably fetch, instead of under Cl. (b), which provides for valuation based on the cost of construction of the building and the value of the land. The appellant's objections were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation and by the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The appellant then appealed to the High Court at Calcutta, which upheld the appellant's contention that the valuation should have been made under Cl. (a) of S. 127 and set aside the assessment. However, the High Court also remanded the case to the Court of Small Causes and directed it to make a fresh valuation itself under Cl. (a) of S. 127.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the order of remand made by the High Court was not justified. The Court held that the Act did not empower a Court to make a valuation itself, and that the valuation made under the order of the High Court would not be a revised valuation or a previous valuation altered, as contemplated by Ss. 147 and 164 of the Act. The Court further held that the scheme of the Act was that every valuation was to be made by the Corporation under Ss. 131 and 136 to 138, and that the rate payer had a chance of attacking that valuation under S. 139, before coming to a Court for ventilating his grievance. The Court also held that the order of remand was futile and offended the Act as it deprived the appellant of one of its statutory rights.
Issues: Whether the High Court had the power to remand the case to the Court of Small Causes for making a fresh valuation itself.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not have the power to remand the case to the Court of Small Causes for making a fresh valuation itself. The Court held that the Act did not empower a Court to make a valuation itself, and that the valuation made under the order of the High Court would not be a revised valuation or a previous valuation altered, as contemplated by Ss. 147 and 164 of the Act. The Court further held that the scheme of the Act was that every valuation was to be made by the Corporation under Ss. 131 and 136 to 138, and that the rate payer had a chance of attacking that valuation under S. 139, before coming to a Court for ventilating his grievance.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as the orders for remand were concerned, and restored the judgment of the Court of Small Causes.
Judgement
SARKAR, J. (For himself and Raghubar Dayal, J.) : These (two appeals arise out of proceedings for ascertainment of the annual value of premises No. 12, Mission Row, Calcutta, occupied by the appellant. The annual value was ascertained with a view to assess the municipal rates payable in respect of the premises. The appeals raise a common question of law making it unnecessary to deal with them separately, that question being whether the order of remand made by the High Court at Calcutta to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta for ascertaining the annual value was justified.
2. The annual value was ascertained under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. This Act was repealed and replaced by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 as from May 1, 1952, but as the valuation had originally been made by the respondent Corporation under the repealed Act it is that Act by which the question that arises will have to be determined.
3. We may at this stage profitably refer to some of the sections in Ch. X of the Act for giving an idea of its scheme regarding the ascertainment of the annual value. Section 124 provides that a consolidated rate not exceeding twenty-three per cent on the annual valuation determined under Ch. X of the Act may be imposed by the Corporation upon all land and buildings in Calcutta. Clauses (a) and (b) of S. 127 lay down two mutually exclusive methods for ascertaining the annual value. The method prescribed in Cl. (a) is applicable where a building had been erected for letting purposes or was ordinarily let and under it the valuation has to be based on the rent which the land or building might reasonably fetch. Clause (b), on the other hand, covers all other cases and provides for the valuation being based on the cost of construction of the building and the value of the land. Section 131 (1) provides that the valuation made under the preceding Municipal Acts shall remain in force for the assessment of the consolidated rate under the Act until such time as the Executive Officer makes a fresh valuation under the Act and that fresh valuation shall have effect for a period of six years and may be revised thereafter at the termination of successive periods of six years. The Executive Officer mentioned is one of the officers of the Corporation appointed under the Act. Section 131 (2) (b) states that "any land or building the valuation of which has been cancelled on the ground of irregularity...... may be valued by the Executive Officer at any time during the currency of the period prescribed.........by sub-section (1), and such valuation shall remain in force ........ for the unexpired portion of such period." Section 136 to 138 lay down the procedure for the making of the valuation and of giving notices in respect thereof to the ratepayers. Under S. 139 a rate-payer dissatisfied with the valuation made by the Corporation may lodge with the Corporation his objections to it. Section 140 provides for an order being made by the Executive Officer on these objections after investigation on notice to the rate-payer. Section 141 gives the rate-payer dissatisfied with the order made under S. 140 a right to appeal against it to the Court of Small Causes. Under S. 142 (3) an appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of the Court of Small Causes under S. 141. Section 147 is in these terms : "When the valuation of any land or building is revised in consequence of an objection made under S. 139 or S. 146, sub-section (2), or an appeal is preferred under S. 141, the revised valuation shall take effect from the quarter in which the first-mentioned valuation would have taken effect, and shall continue in force for the period for which the said first-mentioned valuation was made, and no longer. Section 146 is not material for our purposes. Section 164 (1) states that "When an objection to a valuation has been made under S. 139, the consolidated rate shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be paid on the previous valuat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
