SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Biswajit Basu, J.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Vs.
Anupama Jain – Respondent
Civil Order No. 3367 of 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Alok Kumar Ghosh, Adv., Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv., Rupak Ghosh, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with statutory provisions, including the duty of the hearing officer to adhere to the statutory procedure and the obligation of the Tribunal to follow the prescribed procedure for disposal of appeals.

Headnote:

Kolkata Municipal Corporation - Property Valuation - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, Section 184(4), Section 186, Section 189(5) - The court discussed the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 related to the annual valuation of property and the procedure for hearing and disposal of objections. It highlighted the duty of the hearing officer to adhere to the statutory procedure and the obligation of the Tribunal to follow the prescribed procedure for disposal of appeals. The court emphasized the lack of reasoning in the impugned order and the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner served a notice proposing the annual valuation of a flat, to which the opposite parties objected. The hearing officer fixed the annual valuation, which was later modified by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation challenged the tribunal's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tribunal's order lacked reasoning and failed to follow the statutory procedure for disposal of appeals. It emphasized the duty of the hearing officer to adhere to the statutory procedure and the obligation of the Tribunal to follow the prescribed procedure for disposal of appeals.

Issues: The issues involved the lack of reasoning in the tribunal's order, the failure to follow statutory procedure, and the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal's order was set aside due to the lack of reasoning and directed the Municipal Assessment Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in strict compliance with the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Final Decision: The order impugned was set aside, and the Municipal Assessment Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal afresh in strict compliance with the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The revisional application was allowed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Basu, J.

The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated January 19, 2017 passed by the learned First Bench, Municipal Assessment Tribunal, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in M.A Appeal No. 1850 of 2012 thereby, modifying the order dated August 06, 2012 passed by Hearing Officer X of Kolkata Municipal Corporation in objection registered being serial No. 857 of Ward No. 018.

2. The opposite parties are the owners of Flat No. 10B at the 10th floor of the multi-storied building at premises No. 9A Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Kolkata. 700006 within the Ward No. 018 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Said Flat' in short)

3. The petitioner served a notice to the opposite parties under Section 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 proposing the annual valuation of the said flat. The opposite parties objected to the said proposed annual valuation of the said flat. The hearing officer by the order dated August 06, 2012 fixed the annual valuation of the said flat at Rs. 39,730/- with effect from second quarter 2008-2009.

4. The opposite parties aggrieved by the said order of the hearing officer preferred an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, being M.A Appeal No. 1850 of 2012.

5. The Tribunal by the order impugned modified the aforementioned order of the hearing officer by reducing the annual valuation of the said flat to Rs. 20,350/- from Rs. 39,730/- with effect from the said second quarter 2008-2009.

6. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has assailed the said order of the Tribunal in the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under challenge is not only bad in law for lack of reasoning but also, the Tribunal only on the basis of an earlier judgment of it passed in M.A Appeal No. 1830 of 2012 on the ground that the learned Second Bench of the Tribunal assessed the annual valuation of a flat of identical characteristic of the premises @ Rs. 140/- per square feet per month for flat arrear and @ of Rs. 0.70/- per square feet for per month for car parking space with effect from second quarter 2008-2009 without ascertaining whether the said assessment has attained finality or not.

8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the Tribunal has assessed the annual valuation of the said flat on the basis of materials available on record.

He further submits that the Tribunal relied on it's earlier judgment passed by it in respect of a flat situated in the same premises where the flat of his client is situated, therefore, the said judgment was only the relevant document available before the Tribunal in assessing the annual valuation of the said flat. Therefore, according to him the Tribunal has rightly relied on it's said earlier judgment in assessing the annual valuation of the said flat. The finding of the Tribunal being passed on appreciation of factual aspect of the matter there is no scope of interference in the said factual finding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. The learned advocates for the opposite party in support of his aforesaid submission placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJKAMAL KALAMANDIR (P) LTD.... Appellants versus- INDIAN MOTION PICTURES EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS....Respondent reported in, 1963 (1) LLJ 318 and in the case of PURAN RAM.....Appellant versus- BHAGURAM AND ANOTHER......... Respondents reported in, (2008) 4 SCC 102.

10. Heard learned advocates for the parties perused the materials on record.

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to the said Act in short) provides the detail provisions of taxation and property tax under Part. IV Chapter. 12 of the said Act.

Under Section 180 of the said Act the annual valuation of a land or building may be revised on the grounds mentioned























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top