Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
BALA BESTOS INDIA LTD - Respondent
G. A. 4558 Of 1997
Decided On : 02/10/1998
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTIONS 178(1), 178(2)(II), 189(6) - ANNUAL VALUATION OF FLATS - MUTATION OF NAMES - JURISDICTION OF HEARING OFFICER - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, residents of separate flats in a multi-storeyed building, challenged the orders of revision in valuation of the premises, claiming that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had no authority to mutate their names or make annual valuation of each flat separately. The petitioners had filed writ petitions without preferring an appeal as provided under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal under section 189(6) of the Act. The Court also held that the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction to mutate the names of the petitioners and to make annual valuation of each flat separately, as the provisions of section 178(2)(ii) of the Act were not applicable in the absence of a Municipal Assessment Code framed under section 178(1).
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy? 2. Whether the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction to mutate the names of the petitioners and to make annual valuation of each flat separately?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal under section 189(6) of the Act. The Court relied on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments, including Titaghar Papers Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which held that where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition. 2. The Court held that the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction to mutate the names of the petitioners and to make annual valuation of each flat separately, as the provisions of section 178(2)(ii) of the Act were not applicable in the absence of a Municipal Assessment Code framed under section 178(1). The Court noted that section 178(2) refers to the rules which may be framed under section 178(1), and since no such code had been framed, the provisions of section 178(2)(ii) could not be relied upon to challenge the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to avail the statutory alternative remedy by preferring an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal.
( 1 ) THE Court: These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 2281 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the petitioners' writ petition questioning the orders of revision in valuation of the premises dated 27. 8. 1996 as contained in annexure 'f' to the writ application were allowed.
( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioners are residents of separate flats situated in a multi-storeyed building at premises No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta-19.
( 3 ) FROM annexure 'a' to the Writ Application it appears that one Mr. Aditya Kanoria, who is said to be the original owner of the land and the building, had furnished the details as regards the Floor No. , Unit No. , Name and Address of the Occupier, the Unit Area Sq. Ft. including Common Areas, Value of Agreements (Rs.), Dates of Agreements, Dates of Registration of Land, Date of Possession, Accommodation Type, Car Parks, Drivers' Quarters/stores, etc. of the flats occupied by 21 persons. Pursuant to or on the basis of the said details furnished by the said Sri Kanoria, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had assessed 21 Owners of flats separately and pursuant whereto a notice as contained in annexure 'c' to the writ application had been issued. In the grounds of revision mentioned in the said notice, it is stated that the same was done as 'a new value of the new buildings on mutation and apportionment on estimated yearly reasonable rental value less statutory allowance of repairs with effect from March 1995-96. The petitioners filed objections to the said notice on or about August 21, 1996, as contained in annexure 'd' to the writ application wherein no challenge was thrown as regards the orders of mutation. Even the authority of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to make annual valuation in respect of each flat separately had not been questioned. Upon giving an opportunity of hearing, the valuation so made was reduced by the Hearing Officer by the impugned order dated 27. 8. 1996, as contained in annexure 'f' to the writ application. Fourteen out of 21 of the occupiers of the flats without preferring any appeal as against the said order as envisaged under sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, filed 14 writ applications claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :" (A) A writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each of their men, agents and subordinate to withdraw, cancel and rescind the purported determination of annual valuation of the flat No. 021 at premises No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta-700019 at Rs. 1,04,140/- with effect from 3rd Quarter 1995-96 as communicated by the Memo. No. 33539 dated 27. 08. 1996 being annexure "f". (b) A writ of and/or writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and subordinates to certify and transmit the records relating to the case to this Hon'ble Court for doing conscionable justice by quashing the purported Memo. No. 33539 dated 27. 8. 1996 being annexure "f". (c) A writ of and/or a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the respondents and each of them and their men, agents and subordinates to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or from taking any steps pursuant to and in furtherance of the purported determination of annual valuation in respect of flat No. 021 at premised No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta-700019 at Rs. 1,04,140/- with effect from 3rd Quarter 1995-96 as communicated by Memo. No. 33539 dated 27. 08. 1996 being annexure "f".
( 4 ) A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge would show that although no question was raised as regards the applicability of sub-section (2) of section 178 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act or the right of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to mutate the names of the writ petitioners, liberty was
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
