Municipal authority must act within jurisdiction and statutory mandates during property valuation revisions; arbitrary actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

Judgment :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner/company being the lessor, was first entangled with the respondent no. 5/lessee/Bank for due compliance of the terms of agreement inter se. A suit, appeal, execution proceeding and appeal from the order in execution proceeding followed, discussion in detail of which may be gone into in this judgment later, if necessary. For the time being it would suffice to mention that in appeals filed by the respondent no. 5/lessee/Bank being No. APO 173 and 174 both of 2019, this Court, vide order dated January 8, 2020 was pleased to give liberty to the parties to apply to the respondent /Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to determine the proportionate share of municipal taxes and surcharge for the area of the premises under occupation of the respondent No. 5/Bank, during the period from April 2006 to September, 2011. The Court expressed hope that either of the parties may make an appropriate application under Section 178 (6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short KMC Act 1980) within the stipulated time.

2. The Corporation should determine the proportionate share municipal tax and surcharge payable by the parties respectively, after affording them reasonable opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the order of the Appeal Court dated January 8, 2020, the petitioners submitted a representation dated January 20, 2020

3. During the course of the proceedings before the KMC, the petitioner has received a written communication dated February 23, 2021 inter alia stating therein, that annual valuation of the property is proposed to be enhanced thereby from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007. The municipal authorities proposed the annual valuation from the 1st quarter of 2006- 2007 to the 2nd quarter of 2006-2007 at the rate of Rs. 45,48,670/-, whereas attempted to make intermediate revision and enhancement of the annual valuation with effect from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007 to Rs. 95,32,740/- while determining the proportionate municipal tax payable. The annual valuation on and from 4^th quarter of 2006-2007 till the 4^th quarter of 2016-2017 was accordingly stood revised. Hearing was held on July 30, 2021, in which the authorised representative of the writ petitioner took part and raised objection as to the proposed enhancement of annual valuation of the property. However, by dint of a written communication dated September 2, 2021. The writ petitioner was served with the information of revised annual valuation together with the rate card and the supplementary bills. Subsequently, by dint of another letter dated September 16, 2021. The KMC informed the proportionate total liability of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5/ Bank, in accordance with the revised rate of annual valuation to be to the tune of Rs. 56,94,399/- for the writ petitioner and Rs.1,51,05,383/- for the respondent No. 5/Bank.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the intermediate revision of the annual valuation of the property by the KMC and has prayed for the relief that the order of revision of annual valuation of the property with effect from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007 be set aside and the rate card and supplementary bills issued be directed to be revoked immediately.

5. Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the action of the municipal authorities in revising the annual valuation from the 3^rd quarter of 2006 – 2007 is only arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, contrary to law and without authority and jurisdiction. In doing so, according to him, the r