Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BARIN GHOSH, J.
Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. & Ors.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P. No. 2377 of 1989 with W.P. No. 1005 of 1990 with W.P. No. 2049 of 1999 with W.P. No.7 of 2002
Decided On : July 8, 2002
MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT - Annual valuation of premises - Revision - Power of Municipal Corporation - Principles governing assessment - Apportionment of liability for consolidated rate - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd., filed writ petitions challenging the notice issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) to amend the Municipal Assessment Book in relation to the petitioner's premises, the subsequent valuation orders fixing the reasonable rent of the premises, and the revaluations of the annual valuation of the premises. The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (the Act) were ultra vires and that the valuations were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Act were valid and that the CMC had the power to revise the annual valuation of the premises. The Court also held that the principles governing the assessment of the annual valuation were reasonable and that the CMC had acted in accordance with those principles. Further, the Court held that the provisions for apportionment of liability for consolidated rate were valid and that the CMC had acted in accordance with those provisions.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (the Act) were ultra vires? 2. Whether the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) had the power to revise the annual valuation of the premises? 3. Whether the principles governing the assessment of the annual valuation were reasonable? 4. Whether the CMC had acted in accordance with the principles governing the assessment of the annual valuation? 5. Whether the provisions for apportionment of liability for consolidated rate were valid? 6. Whether the CMC had acted in accordance with the provisions for apportionment of liability for consolidated rate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of the Act were not ultra vires as they were enacted by the state legislature in exercise of its powers under the Constitution of India. 2. The Court held that the CMC had the power to revise the annual valuation of the premises under sections 179, 180, and 192 of the Act. 3. The Court held that the principles governing the assessment of the annual valuation, as set out in sections 174 and 194 of the Act, were reasonable and that the CMC had acted in accordance with those principles. 4. The Court held that the CMC had acted in accordance with the principles governing the assessment of the annual valuation by taking into account the actual rent received by the petitioner, the rent realized by the petitioner's tenant from its sub-tenants, and the increase in the market value of the premises. 5. The Court held that the provisions for apportionment of liability for consolidated rate, as set out in section 194 of the Act, were valid as they provided a mechanism for apportioning the liability between the landlord and the tenant. 6. The Court held that the CMC had acted in accordance with the provisions for apportionment of liability for consolidated rate by apportioning the liability between the petitioner and its tenant.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions on merits, but directed the delegated legislature to amend the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 in order to comply with the legislative mandate contained in section 188 of the Act. The Court also directed the CMC to supply a copy of the order of the Hearing Officer to the person filing objection.
Barin Ghosh, J.: These writ petitions were filed by M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. and its Director, hereinafter collectively called "the petitioner".
The petitioner is the owner of premises No.6, Lyons Range, Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as "the said premises".
2. Steps were taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Corporation") to amend the Municipal Assessment Book in relation to the said premises under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act; 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and accordingly a notice was issued on 21" March, 1989. The petitioner by filing a writ petition challenged the said notice. Having noted the fact that the petitioner has filed an objection and that a date of hearing has been fixed to consider such objection, the Court did not interfere in the said writ petition. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and considering his objection the Hearing Officer fixed the reasonable rent of the said premises at Rs. 3,41,342/- per month by an order dated 21st March,1989. Against the order dated 21st March, 1989 the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2377 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the first petition"). As appears from the order dated 21st March, 1989 before the Hearing Officer the petitioner contended that it is collecting rent of Rs.1,74,741.52/- per month from the said premises. As against that the respondent Corporation contended that the premises is earning net rent of Rs. 3,60,272/- per month. The order dated 21st March, 1989 further records that whereas the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of its claim, the respondent Corporation has produced written statements of the tenants, details of rent receipts, inspection report etc. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with at all in the first petition.
3. In the first petition the petitioner also challenged the immediately prior valuation made in the similar circumstances by the order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th. October, 1988.
4. By reason of the said order dated 21st. March, 1989 the annual value of the said premises stood at Rs. 36,86,490/- with effect from 4th. quarter 198687. Prior thereto the same was fixed at Rs. 18,90,000/- by reason of an order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th October, 1988. In the first petition the validity of sections 171, 174(1) and (4A) read with Schedule VIII, as well as sections 184(3), 185, 191 and 192 of the said Act were also challenged. At the hearing the challenge to the said sections of the Act, however, was not pressed.
5. While the first writ petition was pending the respondent Corporation proposed to revalue the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 48,16,070/ - with effect from 4th. quarter 1987-88 on the basis that the said premises is fetching a rent of Rs. 4,45, 932/- per month. The petitioner gave an objection thereto and thereupon a hearing notice was issued. After such hearing the valuation of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 45,42,070/- by the Hearing Officer. In W.P. No. 1005 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the second petition") the petitioner challenged the said valuation. In the second petition the petitioner also challenged the validity of sections 174(1) and (4A) read with Schedule VIII as well as sections 191 and 192 of the said Act. At the hearing the challenge thrown to the validity of the provisions of the said Act was not pressed.
6. It has not been mentioned in the second petition that before the Hearing Officer the respondent Corporation produced records showing the rental income fetched by the said premises. It was also not stated in the second petition that while the respondent Corporation was claiming on the basis of the actual rent paid by the occupiers, the petitioner was claiming on the basis of actual rent received by it. It was, however, contended in the second petition that annual value in so far as the petitioner is concerned can at the best be determined o
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
