Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
M/s. Tirupati Niriyat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Opposite parties
A.S.T. No. 145 of 2015, A.S.T.A. No. 83 of 2015 With A.S.T. No. 144 of 2015 A.S.T.A No. 84 of 2015
Decided On : 04-08-2015
For the Appellants :Saktinath Mukherjee, Abhrajit Mitra, Suman Kr. Dutta, Prasanta Naskar, Rudrajit Sarkar, Pallavi Gogoi and Debangshu Dinda, Advocates
For the Kolkata Municipal Corporation :L.K. Gupta, Biswajit Mukherjee and Swapan Debnath, Advocates
Where a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to quash the decision of an inferior court on the ground that the decision was wrong.
Headnote:
PROPERTY TAX - ANNUAL VALUATION - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - STATUTORY APPEAL - AVAILABILITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE - KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTIONS 174, 178(5), 180(2)(ii), 180(2)(ix), 189, 232A - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged the orders of the Hearing Officer confirming the annual valuation of their property and the subsequent steps taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to realize property tax on the disputed annual valuation. They filed writ petitions alleging violation of natural justice, absence of jurisdiction, and failure to consider objections. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory appeal under Section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants did not exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act by preferring an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority. The Court found no reason to bypass the alternative remedy and affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Hearing Officer acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice in determining the annual valuation? 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to know the reason for and the basis on which the enhancement of Annual Valuation was proposed? 3. Whether the determination of annual valuation for seven different periods at the same time was valid? 4. Whether the interim valuation done by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was without jurisdiction and a nullity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hearing Officer, being the Prescribed Authority, has the jurisdiction to revise the annual valuation and serve hearing notices inviting written objections. 2. The appellants were aware of the grounds on which the annual valuation was revised and participated in the hearing before the Hearing Officer. 3. There is no bar under Section 180 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act to take up interim valuation more than one at a time. 4. The interim valuation was not without jurisdiction and a nullity as Section 180(2)(ii) was revived in terms of Section 232A with effect from 1st January, 2012.
Final Decision: The appeals and the connected applications were dismissed without awarding any costs.
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
The appellants herein are the co-owners of the premises No. 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata - 700 019 which is a ground plus four storied building. Being aggrieved by the notices of demand dated 2nd April, 2014 and 19th June, 2014 respectively and also by the letter of intimation dated 2nd February, 2014 showing outstanding of the property tax for certain quarters as mentioned therein and on account of failure to consider the objections as mentioned in the letter of the learned advocate of the appellants herein dated 12th March, 2014 and further being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to realise property tax on disputed annual valuation, appellants herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 27528 (W) of 2014.
2. Challenging the order dated 18th October, 2014 passed by the Hearing Officer-VI confirming the order of annual valuation as passed by the then Hearing Officer-VI dated 16th February, 2013 for different periods in respect of the premises in question and being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to realise the property tax of the said premises on the basis of the annual valuation as determined on 16th February, 2013 and confirmed by the present Hearing Officer-VI, subsequently another writ petition being W.P. 31738 (W) of 2014 was filed. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by two separate orders passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 3rd June, 2015 on identical ground namely, for not resorting to the provisions of statutory appeal. While dismissing the writ petitions, learned single Judge did not go into the merits of the controversy in view of the availability of the statutory appeal under the provisions of Section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Challenging both the orders, two separate appeals were preferred by the appellant herein. Both the appeals and the connected applications were heard analogously by this Bench since the facts are similar and issues involved therein are identical in nature.
4. It appears from the available records that the construction of the Ground plus four storied building of the appellants was completed on or about 19th April, 2011 and completion certificate was issued by the Corporation on 29th August, 2011.
5. On or about 12th December, 2012 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued seven notices bearing No. 616502 to 616508 proposing to fix the general valuation of the entire premises. The proposed valuation for the different quarters are as under :-
1) 2nd Quarter 2007-08 Rs. 2,72,080/-
2) 1st Quarter 2008-09 Rs. 1,77,33,320/-
3) 2nd Quarter 2008-09 Rs. 2,12,93,360/-
4) 1st Quarter 2009-10 Rs. 1,84,29,930/-
5) 1st Quarter 2011-12 Rs. 2,01,13,900/-
6) 2nd Quarter 2011-12 Rs. 2,05,93,420/-
7) 1st Quarter 2012-13 Rs. 1,78,45,720/-
6. In all the aforesaid notices, it has been specifically mentioned that the annual valuation of the premises in question was revised on the ground mentioned in Item No. VI which is set out hereunder :-
Grounds for revision in the Annual Value assessed:
VI. Revaluation of the premises on estimated annual rent less statutory allowance for repairs or revaluation of the premises due to rise of market value of the land or building.
7. In response to the aforesaid notices, objections were filed on behalf of the appellants herein. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation determined the annual valuation separately, but the basis of such determination is the actual rent allegedly received by the appellants.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Hearing Officer while determining the annual valuation refused to take into account the objections raised by the said appellants in an appropriate manner.
9. The learned senior counsel representing the appellants submitted that the Hearing Officer has maintained the prior determination of the annual valuation made by h
