Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
Jaginder Singh & Ors.
Vs.
Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.
W. P. 3020 (W) of 1997
Decided on : June 26, 1997
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - Ss. 180(2)(i), 188(3), 189 - WRIT JURISDICTION - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ORDER OF HEARING OFFICER FIXING ANNUAL VALUATION OF PREMISES - CHALLENGE TO - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABILITY - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitioners challenged the notice issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) proposing to enhance the annual valuation of their premises on the ground of change of ownership and the order of the Hearing Officer fixing the annual valuation. The petitioners contended that the enhancement was made without any reason and that the order of the Hearing Officer was not a speaking order. They also argued that the order was passed without application of mind and that the principle of natural justice was violated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioners by way of an appeal to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The court also held that the order of the Hearing Officer was a reasoned order and that the principle of natural justice was not violated. The court further held that the petitioners could not take advantage of two parallel remedies and that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal? 2. Whether the order of the Hearing Officer was a reasoned order? 3. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated? 4. Whether the petitioners could take advantage of two parallel remedies?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioners by way of an appeal to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The court relied on the principle that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available. 2. The court held that the order of the Hearing Officer was a reasoned order. The court noted that a reasoned order had been passed by the Hearing Officer and that the same was evident from the records of the case. 3. The court held that the principle of natural justice was not violated. The court noted that the petitioners had not been able to show that the Hearing Officer had violated the principle of natural justice in determining the annual valuation of the premises. 4. The court held that the petitioners could not take advantage of two parallel remedies. The court relied on the principle that a litigant cannot take resort to parallel remedies in respect of one order passed against which he is aggrieved.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Tarun Chatterjee, J.: The writ petitioners jointly purchased the premises No. 48, Circus Avenue, Calcutta-700 017, at a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs from the original owner Pradip Addi by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 31st March, 1992. Prior to purchase of the said premises, the annual valuation of the same was Rs. 16,740/- and the consolidated rate was fixed at Rs. 1607/- per quarter. After purchase of the said premises, the writ petitioner made an application for mutation of their names in respect of the said premises before the concerned authority of the corporation who upon due consideration of all the papers including the application for mutation asked the writ petitioners to deposit certain amount towards fees for mutation. The writ petitioners thereafter duly deposited the required sum and on deposit of the said sum the names of the writ petitioners have been duly recorded in respect of the said premises in the relevant register of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CMC). After disposal of the aforesaid mutation case by recording the names of the writ petitioners in respect of the said premises a special notice under s. 184 sub-s. (4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 28th April, 1993 was served upon the writ petitioners from which it is learnt that the annual valuation of the said premises was proposed to be enhanced at Rs. 1,21,500/- with effect from 1st quarter of 1992-93. From the said notice, it appears that the enhancement was made on the ground which is as follows:-
"As re-valuation of the premises due to change of ownership with effect from 1st quarter of 1992-93 on reasonably yearly rental less statutory allowance for repairs."
2. From a plain reading of the aforesaid notice, it appears that the annual valuation of the said premises was sought to be enhanced on the ground of change of ownership under S. 180(2)(i) read with S. 180 sub-s. (3) and S. 178 sub-s. (4) of the Act with effect from 1st quarter of 1992-93. Being aggrieved of the said premises, the writ petitioners duly raised objection. After giving hearing to the writ petitioners, the Heading Officer XII passed an order on 31st of May, 1993 determining and/or fixing the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 89,000/- with effect from first quarter of 1992-93, accordingly the quarterly rate of tax was fixed at Rs. 9,011/-.
3. The writ petitioners have moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the notice dated 28th April, 1993 and the order passed by the Hearing Officer-XII dated 31st of May, 1993 fixing the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 89,000/- with effect from first quarter of 1992-93 as communicated by the letter of the Assistant Assessor, Division 25, dated 31st of May, 1993 and also taking of any action or step in pursuance thereof. The writ petitioners have however, preferred an appeal against the order of the Hearing Officer-XII before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Calcutta and the said appeal has been registered as Municipal Assessment Appeal No. 293 of 1993.
4. Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners raised mainly two questions for my consideration. According to him, the order of the Hearing Officer-XII is not at all a speaking order and the same is absolutely without any reason and, therefore, the order of the Hearing Officer-XII shall be liable to be set aside. Mr. Ghosh also contended that when the fair rental value of the said premises had already been determined in the last general re-valuation and there was neither any addition or alteration nor any other change in the circumstances relevant to valuation at all material times, it was not open to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities to discard the rental value and determine the annual valuation on the basis of the sale price. Mr. Ghosh further contended that although an appeal has been preferred which has not yet be
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
