The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of annual valuation by the petitioners and their authorized representative, followed by a request for further waiver, indicated their satisfaction with the valuation and waiver of their right to raise objections. The court also emphasized the principle that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong.

JUDGMENT

Amrita Sinha, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the assessment of annual valuation with effect from first quarter 2010-11, second quarter 2012-13 and first quarter 2015-16 in respect of the apportioned share of the eighth floor of the premises no. 11, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata, Ward No. 63 under the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

2. According to the petitioners, there are serious procedural lapses on the part of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation ('KMC', for short) at the time of revising and re-fixing the annual valuation.

3. The petitioners refer to the communication dated 26th February, 2019 made by the Assistant Assessor Collector(s) mentioning the proposed annual valuation and intimating the petitioners that its prayer for allowing 28% rebate has been approved by the authority.

4. The petitioners refer to the property tax bills dated 28th February, 2019 mentioning the date of hearing and the date of presentation both as 28th February, 2019. It has been submitted that, under no circumstances, the date of presentation, the date of hearing as well as the date of the bill can be the same.

5. The petitioners refer to Sections 184(3), 184(4), 186, 187(1) & 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

6. It has been submitted that, according to the aforesaid provisions the Municipal Commissioner ought to have given one months' notice to the petitioners specifying the proposed annual valuation within which the petitioners could have filed the objection and only after hearing and determining the objections, annual valuation could have been revised or re-fixed.

7. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that prior opportunity of hearing was not given to them and the prescribed procedure for hearing and disposal of the objections was not followed at the time of revising the annual valuation of the property in question.

8. The petitioners submit that, KMC in the affidavit-in-opposition, have relied upon an authorization letter of one Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal and erroneously accepted his admission of the annual valuation by giving a complete go-by to the statutory provisions. It has been argued that irrespective of the fact whether there is an authorization or not and whether or not there is an acceptance of the proposed valuation, the authority ought to have acted within the four corners of the Statute and ought to have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to raise objection to the proposed annual valuation.

9. It has been contended that the aforesaid provisions are mandatory in nature and are meant to be complied with prior to revising or re-fixing the annual valuation of any property.

10. In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioners rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 paragraphs 15 and 16 on the proposition that a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.

11. The petitioners further rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 paragraph 5 wherein the Court held that no plea of waiver can be allowed to be raised unless it is pleaded and the factual foundation for it is laid down in the pleadings.

12. In the present case the plea of waiver has neither been averred nor pleaded in the affidavit filed on behalf of KMC.

13. The petitioners pray for setting aside the annual valuation fixed by KMC and the property tax bills raised in terms of the said annual valuation.

14. Learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitioners all along had knowledge of the entire process of revision of the annual valuation of the aforesaid premises. The petitioners, on one hand, sought for the 28% rebate in terms of the order