IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that annual property valuations must be based on market conditions and statutory guidelines, with clear reasoning required for any modifications.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This instant revisional application has been filed at the behest of the petitioner/The Kolkata Municipal Corporation challenging the impugned order 2nd dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the learned Bench, Municipal Assessment Tribunal, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation in connection with M.A. Appeal No. 3333 of 2002.

2. By passing the impugned order learned Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and modified the impugned order passed by the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The learned Tribunal accepted the rate of rent of the case premises @ Rs. 1.00 per sq.ft per month w.e.f. 4/1999-2000 for flat area and 0.50 per sq.ft. per month for common area, car parking space and for staircase and lift.

3. A five storied new building was constructed at the premises no. 91, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (here in after will be referred as KMC) having total numbers of 8 flats therein. The said 8 flats were subsequently transferred/sold out to 8 persons including the private respondent (herein) and all of them approached before the K.M.C to mutate their names. Accordingly, K.M.C mutated their names as owners/persons responsible to pay municipal taxes and assessee numbers were provided to them for the purpose of assessing the annual valuation of the flats of the premises in question. K.M.C served notice upon the owners/persons including this private respondent with a proposal of annual valuation taking into account on the basis of reasonable rent to be faced @ of Rs. 3.50 per square feet per month for the area of the flat along with common and parking space for the period w.e.f. 4/1999-2000. The predecessor-in-interest of this private respondent raised objection to the said notices of the proposed annual valuation before the Hearing Officer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Hearing Officer after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties fixed the annual valuation in respect of the flats of the premises and reduced the reasonable rent so proposed by the K.M.C.

4. The matter was taken to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal by the private respondent challenging the order passed by the Hearing Officer of the K.M.C. After hearing of both sides the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order in which it accepted the rate of rent @ 1.00 per sq.ft per month w.e.f 4/1999-2000 for the flat area and @ 0.50 per sq.ft per month for common area, car parking space and for stair and lift. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby reproduced as under.

As there is difference of 5 Qtre. In between 4/99-2000 and 1/2001-2002, only 3% will be enhanced from the A.V. w.e.f. 4/99-2000 for finding out the A.V. w.e.f. 1/2001-2002. Therefore, the A.V. of the flat under appeal w.e.f. 4/99-2000 (M.A.A. No. 3333/02) comes to : (771 × Rs 1.00 × 12 less 10%) + (115 × Rs 0.50 × 12 less 10%) + (206 × Rs. 0.50 × 12 less 10%) = Rs. 10,060.2 or say Rs. 10060.00 And the A.V. for the flat under appeal w.e.f. 1/2001-2002 (M.A.A No. 3334/02) comes to : = Rs. 10,060.00 + 3% = Rs. 10361.8 or say Rs. 10,360.00 As a result, both the appeal succeed in part and the impugned orders of Ld. H.O – are modified.

5. Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the K.M.C submits that the learned Tribunal did not consider the facts that the case premises situated at 91, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata was newly constructed and valuation was fixed for the first time considering the present market rent prevailing at the locality for the assessment period of 4th quarter, 1999-2000 and 1st quarter of 2001-2002. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Tribunal wrongly modified the order of the Hearing Officer by taking the reasonable rent @ Rs. 1.00 per sq.ft. per month for flat area and @ Rs. 0.50 per sq.ft. per month for staircase and lift and for common area including car parking space. It is contended by Mr. Ghosh that at the time of