A person who is not the recorded owner of a property is not entitled to a notice of hearing under Section 184 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Pratap Kumar Ray, J. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 14th January, 2008 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in W.P.No.299 of 2006, this appeal has been preferred by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the Learned Trial Judge allowed the writ application and thereby on quashing the impugned rate cards and consolidated rate bills (fresh and supplementary) for the quarters in question as noted thereto directed de novo hearing of the matter to determine the valuation afresh on hearing the writ petitioner, who as per findings of the Learned Trial Judge being the recorded owner got no opportunity of hearing to oppose the annual valuation proposed, as no notice was served upon him.

3. An opposition was filed with reference to the writ application by the Appellant-Corporation contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioner was never the recorded owner/occupier/lessee/sub-lessee of the premises in question and as such he had no legal right to claim right of hearing with reference to the annual valuation as was done in terms of Section 184 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. It was further contended that the notice was duly served to the recorded owner under certificate of posting in terms of the statutory provision of Sub-section 4 of Section 184 whereby and whereunder statute provides scope to issue notice of annual valuation under certificate of posting by declaring such mode of service by certificate of posting statutorily legal and valid.

4. The appellant before us has contended the same thing as urged before the Learned Trial Judge.

5. The writ petitioner since pleaded that he was the owner of the premises in question accordingly got a right to be heard for annual valuation with reference to the assessment years impugned in the writ application being the 4th quarter of 1990-91 and 4th quarter of 1996-97, the Court directed to file an affidavit disclosing his ownership right with reference to the premises in question. A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the writ petitioner was filed. However, it was contended that in the property in question the writ petitioner accrued legal right as owner in terms of the following transactions namely, (a) due to arbitration Award dated 13th September, 1956 whereby 8.33% of total area of the premises in question was allotted in his favour and thereby he accrued a right, (b) by registered Deed of Conveyance dated 22nd July, 2005 writ petitioner no.1 acquired 16.66% share in the said premises and (c) by another registered Deed of Conveyance dated 22nd July, 2005 acquired 16.66% share in the said premises.

6. It is an admitted fact as it appears from the pleading of the writ application that the impugned rate cards and the annual valuation issued, relate to the 4th quarter of 1990-91 and 4th quarter of 1996-97 and the writ petitioner must satisfy that he was either the owner/occupier/lessee/sub-lessee of the premises in question or part thereof with reference to the property under annual valuation as indicated vis-à-vis the respective quarters of such valuation in the annual valuation notice and the rate cards impugned. So far as acquiring of right in the premises in question in the year 1956 due to the arbitral Award a document has been submitted by way of supplementary affidavit affirmed on 11th June, 2008 to satisfy this Court that a letter was addressed to the Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta on 5th March, 1957 by the learned Advocate of P. D. Himatsingka & Co. on behalf of the petitioner requesting to mutate the name of the writ petitioner as owner of the undivided 1/6th share of the concerned premises namely, 6, Russel Street in the Assessment Register of the Corporation. So far as subsequent other two Deeds as have been referred to being the source of accrual of ownership of respective shares in the premises in question, those were not intimated to the Corporation for mutation of the name