The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for tribunals to follow statutory procedures and provide proper reasoning in their decisions, while also emphasizing the need to consider relevant factors and not rely solely on previous judgments that may have been overturned.

JUDGMENT

ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated February 13th , 2018 allowing the appeal in part passed by the Learned 2nd Bench, Municipal assessment Tribunal, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) in Municipal assessment appeal being M.a.a. No. 1823 of 2012 (Mr. anurag Jalan -Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation), present petitioner has preferred this revisional application under article 227 of the constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case, material for the present, is that a new high rise building of XII storied was constructed at the premises No. 9a , Jatindra Mohan avenue, in ward no. 18, Kolkata-700006, consisting of several flats, after obtaining a sanctioned building plan. Construction of said building was completed within 1st quarter of 2008-09.

3. Opposite party purchased a flat measuring a covered area of 861 square feet and can parking area 134 square feet being flat No. 2D on the 2nd Floor of the building at the said premises No. 9a, Jatindra Mohan avenue, in ward no. 18, Kolkata-700006. Post purchase, the opposite party applied to the K.M.C./petitioner to mutate their names against the said purchased flat and K.M.C. authorities accordingly mutated their names and gave assessee number.

4. after service of the notice upon the opposite party and after considering the objection raised by the opposite party regarding proposal of the amount of the assessment of annual Valuation in respect of the said flat, w.e.f. 2nd quarter of 2008-09, petitioner herein / K.M.C. fixed the annual Valuation of the said flat at Rs. 27,020/- for the periods w.e.f. 2/2008-09 taken into consideration their assessed reasonable rate, at the rate of 2.75 per square feet , per month.

5. Opposite party being aggrieved by that order of fixing annual Valuation of the said flat by the K.M.C. preferred an appeal being No. M.a.a.1823/2012 and Learned Municipal 2nd Bench of the Municipal assessment Tribunal upon hearing the parties in the appeal passed the impugned order on February 13th, 2018 allowing the appeal in part, upon modifying of the order of the Hearing Officer by reducing the amount of the annual valuation from Rs.27,020/- to 14,030/- for the periods w.e.f. 2/2008-09

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 13.02.2018, petitioner herein preferred the present revisional application on the ground that Learned Municipal assessment Tribunal did not consider the cost price of the premises and the rise of rent. He ought to have considered the rise of cost of the price of the premises as well as the assessment of annual Valuation which was fixed as first time and also the rise of reasonable rent of the premises, likely to be fetched during the period of the assessment w.e.f. 2nd quarter 2008-09.

7. It is further contended by the petitioner that Learned Municipal assessment Tribunal should have appreciated that the rate of rent fetched by the premises in question @ Rs.2.75 per sq.ft, per month and open car parking @1.00per square feet per month which was taken into consideration to assess the annual valuation by the Hearing Officer, should not have been modified. Most importantly, Learned Municipal assessment Tribunal should not have relied upon the judgement of the Learned Municipal assessment Tribunal, K.M.C., passed in M.a.a. No. 1819/2012, to modify the order of Hearing Officer, because the said judgment has already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

8. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Learned Municipal Tribunal acted improperly and wrongfully by not considering the inspection book copies, referred to by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal,since the same were the basis of orders of Hearing Officer and cannot be replaced by the observation made by the Tribunal passed in M.a.a. No. 1819/2012 which has already been set aside. Lastly, learned Municipal Tribunal failed to make any effort to ascertain the estimated market reasonable rental value of the flat