IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 15.12.2025 DELIVERED ON: 10.04.2026 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH WPO 362 OF 2024 IA No: GA/2/2025, GA/3/2025 INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANR.

VERSUS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Appearance: -

Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Arpita Saha, Adv.

Mr. Asish Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Saurabh Prasad, Adv.

………….. for the Petitioners Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath. Adv. ……. For the KMC Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Adv. Ms. Anjusri Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury, Adv. ….…….… for the State JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a declaration that Section 232B and proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 are ultra vires to Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India and are therefore, void and inoperative under Article 13 thereof. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the memo dated 08.01.2024, along with thirteen other notices dated

04.01.2024, issued for the purpose of retrospective revaluation of Premises No. 25, Brabourne Road (presently known as Biplabi Trailokya Maharaj Sarani), Kolkata–700001.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that this Court, by its judgment dated

24.03.2026 in WPO No. 1220 of 2024, in Sahujain Charitable Society & Anr. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., held that Section 179(2)(d) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, as substituted by Section 3 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2022, shall be operative without the opening non-obstante clause and without sub-clause (ii) whereas sub-clause (i) shall be enforced as enacted, permitting revision of annual valuation within six year from the expiration of the relevant period.

3. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to elucidate the statutory framework of the KMC Act and trace the evolution of its amendments, which together form the legal genesis underpinning the challenge to Section 232B and the Proviso to Section 180(2).

Legal Genesis underpinning the Challenge to Section 232B and the Proviso to Section 180(2)

4. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter ‘KMC Act, 1980’)

was enacted to repeal the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and came into force on 04.01.1984.

5. From its inception, the assessment of annual valuation under the KMC Act, 1980 was governed by Section 174 pursuant to the Annual Rateable Value (‘ARV’) system.

6. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 (‘2006 Act’), which came into effect on 01.05.2007, introduced substantial amendments to Part IV of the KMC Act and replaced the ARV system with the Unit Area Assessment (‘UAA’) system. Consequently, the provisions governing the ARV system were repealed, and new provisions pertaining to the UAA system were incorporated.

7. It was soon realized, however, that significant preparatory work was necessary to operationalize the UAA system, making its immediate implementation unfeasible.

8. To address this transitional difficulty, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2008 (‘2008 Act’), effective from 01.04.2008, inserted Section 174(3), providing that until annual valuations under the UAA system were determined, the valuation of land and buildings would continue to be carried out under the pre-2006 ARV provisions.

9. Subsequently, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011 (‘2011 Act’), effective from 01.01.2012, introduced Section 232A, stipulating that certain pre-2006 provisions of the KMC Act would continue to operate until the final publication of the Scheme under Section

174(1).

10. The UAA Scheme was ultimately published with effect from 01.04.2017.

Accordingly, the ARV system remained applicable until 30.03.2017, after which the UAA system formally came