IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

CO 1002 of 2022

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Vs.

Bikash Banerjee & Anr.

For the petitioner: Mr. Aloke Kr. Ghosh, Adv.,

Mr. Fazul Haque, Adv.

For the opposite parties: Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay, Adv.,

Mr. Bebdatta Saha, Adv.,

Mr. Diprav Deb, Adv.

Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Judgment on: 08.08.2025

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.:

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated March 10, 2021

passed by Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Second Bench, Kolkata Municipal Corporation whereby the MAA 597 of 2016 was allowed in part and the order dated February 6, 2016 of hearing Officer No. XIII of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was modified and the annual valuation of Flat No. 3A and B entire third floor of the Premises No. 26 FT.LT. Tapan Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-

700026 having Assessee No. 11087080 w.e.f. 1/2014-2015 was fixed at Rs.61,280/-. The petitioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation in the petition challenging the impugned order has submitted that hearing Officer No.XIII on February 6, 2016 fixed the annual valuation of the said flat at Rs. 1,12,640/- taking into consideration reasonable rent of the said flat at Rs. 3.70 per sq. ft. and the car parking space at the rate Rs.1.60 per sq.ft. for 1/2014-2015. The petitioner has stated that the Learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for the modification of the order of hearing officer and failed to discharge the duty of quasi judicial appellant body. The petitioner stated that the Learned Tribunal is duty bound to function in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 1980 and the Rules framed thereof.

2. The petitioner has further submitted that learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon a judgment passed by the Learned Tribunal being MAA 248 of 2010 relating to different premises and apparently the Learned Tribunal has relied upon the said judgment without giving any reasons. The petitioner stated that merely because property in the said referred judgment is situated under the same ward of the Kolkata Municipal or within the same locality, where the flat in question situated, cannot be the sole yardstick of assessment of the annual valuation of the said flats.

3. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order is erroneous, unwarranted and unsustainable both in law and facts and liable to be set aside. It has further been submitted that the learned tribunal did not consider the cost price of the premises and the increase in the rent. The petitioner further submitted that hearing officer had correctly assessed the rent at the rate of 3.70 per sq.ft. of the premises and open car parking at the rate of 1.60 per sq.ft. to assess the annual valuation, which has wrongly been interferred by the learned tribunal.

4. It is further been submitted that in MAA 248 of 2010 the annual valuation of particular premises was fixed w.e.f. 3/1996-1997 and it should not have been compared with the determination of annual valuation of the premises in question w.e.f. 3/2007-2008 as there was a gap of more than 10 years. The petitioner further stated that the impugned order is devoid of any reasons and thus, against the principles of natural justice. It was stated that the revision petition could not be filed earlier on account of pandemic.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned tribunal has fallen into error by fixing the reasonable rent at Rs. 2 sq.ft. for covered area and Rs. 1 per sq.ft. per month for car parking without any disclosing any reason. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and facts and, therefore, this Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India despite there being some delay in filing the revision petition. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there is no time limit provided in Article 227 of Constitutio