Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
ANIRUDDHA BASU - Appellant
Versus
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
W. P. 19179 (W) Of 2005
Decided On : 12/14/2005
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - MUTATION - REASSESSMENT - PAYMENT OF RATES AND TAXES - KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTIONS 180(3), 183(5) - HELD, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 183 OF THE SAID ACT, THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY CANNOT WITHHOLD THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR MUTATION ON THE GROUND OF NON-PAYMENT OF ARREAR DUES TO THE CORPORATION EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSFER OR ON ACCOUNT OF PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a flat in a multistoried building in Kolkata and applied for mutation of his name as the owner in the municipal records. He also applied for reassessment of the flat as it was now in his possession and not rented out to a tenant. The municipal authority did not consider either application and continued to demand payment of rates and taxes at the existing rate, which was based on the actual rental income received by the previous owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the municipal authority could not withhold the consideration of the petitioner's prayer for mutation on the ground of non-payment of arrear dues. The court also held that the revision of assessment under section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is prospective and comes into force from the beginning of the quarter of a year following that in which such revision is made. Therefore, the municipal authority could raise a demand for payment of rates and taxes at the existing rate, pending consideration of the petitioner's application for reassessment.
Issues: 1. Whether the municipal authority can withhold the consideration of the petitioner's prayer for mutation on the ground of non-payment of arrear dues? 2. Whether the revision of assessment under section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is retrospective or prospective? 3. Whether the municipal authority can raise a demand for payment of rates and taxes at the existing rate, pending consideration of the petitioner's application for reassessment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to sub-section (5) of section 183 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 prohibits the municipal authority from withholding the consideration of an application for mutation on the ground of non-payment of arrear dues. 2. Sub-section (3) of section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 provides that any revision in the annual valuation of any land or building or portion thereof under this section shall come into force from the beginning of the quarter of a year following that in which such revision becomes applicable. 3. The revision of assessment under section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is prospective and comes into force from the beginning of the quarter of a year following that in which such revision is made.
Final Decision: The court directed the municipal authority to consider the petitioner's application for mutation within four weeks and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. The court also directed the municipal authority to supply the petitioner with the prescribed form for reassessment within one week of the petitioner's approach. The court further directed the municipal authority to consider the petitioner's application for reassessment within four weeks of the submission of the application in the prescribed form. The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the demand for payment of rates and taxes at the existing rate.
J. BHATTACHARYA, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition by challenging the inaction on the part of the concerned respondent of kolkata Municipal Corporation for not considering the petitioner's application for mutation as well as his application for reassessment of the flat in question.
( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased a flat being flat No. 5 in a multistoried building namely Heera apartment situated at premises No. 42f Bedia danga, 2nd Lane (presently New Ballygunge Road, P. S. Kasba) from the erstwhile recorded owner thereof by a registered deed of conveyance dated 29th October 2004.
( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after purchase of the said flat, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name as owner of the said flat in the place of the petitioner's vendor in the municipal records. The requisite formalities which are required to be complied with, has all been completed by the petitioner in this regard.
( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the Municipal authority, as the said authority, in spite of receipt of the petitioner's said application for mutation as back as on 1st March, 2005, has not taken any step in this regard till date.
( 5 ) PRIOR to the purchase of the said flat by the petitioner, the said flat was let out to a tenant by the erstwhile owner thereof. Accordingly the annual valuation of the said premises was assessed by the municipal authority by taking into account the actual rent which was payable by the tenant in respect of the said flat to the erstwhile owner thereof.
( 6 ) THE said tenant subsequently vacated the said flat to the vendor of the petitioner before its sale to the petitioner and as such the petitioner received vacant possession of the said flat from his vendor. Since then, the said flat is in actual possession of the petitioner.
( 7 ) UNDER such circumstance, the petitioner submitted an application for reassessment of his flat by taking into account such change of the nature of occupation of the said flat. The said application which was received by the Assessor-Collector of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 23rd June 2005, still remains unattended.
( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioner also prays for issuance of necessary direction upon the concerned Municipal authority for early consideration of the petitioner's prayer of reassessment of the said flat in terms of the provision of section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act. 1980.
( 9 ) THE petitioner has also challenged the validity and/or legality of the demand notice by which payment of arrear rates and taxes for the period from 2nd quarter of 2002-2005 to the 1st quarter of 2005-2006 at the existing rate was demanded from the petitioner.
( 10 ) MR. Tapabrata Chakrabarty, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, drew attention of this Court to annexure 'p'-2' to this writ petition at page 22 to show that the Municipal authorities themselves acknowledged the receipt of the rates and taxes of the said premises upto 2nd quarter of 2004-2005. Mr. Chakraborty pointed out from annexure 'p-6" to this writ petition that the Municipal authority again demanded the payment of rates and taxes for the period of 2nd quarter of 2004 2005.
( 11 ) MR. Chakrabarty, thus submitted that subsequent demand of the rates and taxes for the very same period which was included in their demand notice being annexure 'p-6' to this writ petition at page 28, is illegal.
( 12 ) MR. Chakrabarty further submitted that the Municipal authority also cannot demand payment of the rates and taxes of the "said flat from the petitioner at the existing rate which was fixed by taking into consideration the actual rental income received by the erstwhile owner thereof from the then tenant of the said flat. Mr. Chakrabarty contended that the Municipal Authority should first reassess the annual valuation of the said flat by taking into account the altered situation as disclosed in his application being annexure 'p-5' to this writ petition a
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
