The jurisdiction of civil courts to question any assessment or valuation made under the Bengal Municipal Act is expressly barred by S. 150 of the Act.

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the disputed holding belongs to him. During the last general assessment defendant, (Asansol Municipality), fixed the valuation of the holding and the municipal tax at Rs. 275/- per annum. But during the new general assessment made in 1964-65, the defendant revalued the holding without serving proper notices on him. So he had no opportunity to know about the valuation. The new assessment was arbitrarily fixed at Rs. 187. 50 P. per quarter. That assessment is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The suit is for a declaration that such assessment is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and also for as injunction to restrain the defendants from realizing the tax from him on the footing of such assessment.

( 2 ) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been alleged inter alia that the suit is not maintainable and it is barred by time. No notice under S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was served. The Court has no jurisdiction. The revaluation was properly made. The plaintiff was aware of the assessment and hence no relief can be granted to him.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendant preferred an appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge stated that the assessment was made perfunctorily and the rules and law were not followed in making such assessment. On that finding the appeal was dismissed. Hence this second appeal by the defendant Municipality.

( 5 ) MR. Sudhis Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the suit is not maintainable because no notice under S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was served. He has a referred to the decision of G. N. Das, J. in the case of Charu Chandra v. Snighdendu Prosad, AIR 1948 Cal. 150. The case of Bata Shoe Company v. Jabbalpur Municipality in AIR 1977 SC 955 has been cited. It has been stated that in that suit filed by Bata Shoe Company the assessment was challenged according to the provisions of C. P. and Berar Municipal Act regarding assessment or levy of octroi. The suit was decreed. But the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on a finding that the jurisdiction of civil court was barred. Hence it is a case of only irregular exercise of jurisdiction because the allegation is that there was an infraction of the rules. It is not a case where the assessment can be challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction or of violation of any constitutional provisions. The question of limitation has been abandoned.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent has contended that no notice under S. 80 of the Code is necessary in view of the Bench decision of Gowardhandas v. Corporation of Calcutta in AIR 1970 Cal 539. There is no bar of limitation. The final court of fact has stated that the rules were infringed and hence the civil court was empowered to deal with the matter. Reference has been made to the case of Navadip Chandra v. Purnananda in 3 Calwn 73, Chairman of the Rajpur Municipality v. Nagendra Nath in 23 Calwn 475 and Commissioners of Konnagar Municipality v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited in ILR (1974) 1 Cal. 12. All those cases show that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the legality or validity of assessment. Moreover, S 151 A which was inserted by an amendment in 1966 with retrospective effect, shows by implication that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the matter, though that section does not expressly say so. Sub-section (1) thereof gives such an indication because it says that when an assessment or valuation is set aside or declared to be void by an order of the court, the rates shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (2) of S. 137, be paid on the previous assessment or revaluation is made under clause (cc) of sub-s. (1) of S. 138. Unless the civil court has power in the matter, it would not have been incorporated in sub-s.