IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Kausik Chanda W.P.O. No.941 of 2024 SHASHI KANT TAPURIAH -VERSUS-

THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS For the petitioner : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Amrita De, Adv.

[

For the K.M.C. : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv., Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 19.03.2025 Judgment on : 20.05.2025 Kausik Chanda, J.:-

The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Hearing Officer, Assessment Collection (South), KMC, whereby the proposed Annual Valuation (A.V.) of Rs.8,26,090/- with effect from the second quarter of 2007-2008 in respect of premises at 1, Alipore Park Palace, Kolkata-700027, was confirmed.

2. The petitioner also challenges the fixation of annual valuation increased from Rs.26,410/- to Rs.3,24,000/- with effect from the first quarter of 2007-2008 based on a presumption of tenancy. He accordingly, prays for setting aside of all supplementary bills issued under the said two assessment orders.

3. It is submitted that there has been no tenant in occupation of the said premises for nearly six decades, a fact consistently asserted by the petitioner and supported by documents including an affidavit affirmed before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on July 9, 2024. Despite such stand, the Corporation proceeded to assess the property as if it were tenanted at Rs.30,000/- per month, without any supporting materials. The petitioner relies on the records of the Corporation, which in the hearing dated October 12, 2023 observed that there was no evidence of a tenant’s existence during the relevant quarter.

4. Further, the petitioner submits that the valuation from the first quarter of 2007-2008 was itself reopened by the Corporation, as admitted in its proceedings and recorded orders. The objection docket of the hearing dated April 23, 2013, itself required an affidavit from a 1st Class Magistrate, recognising the necessity of reviewing the earlier annual valuation in light of the non-existence of tenancy.

5. It is contended that even if it is assumed, without admission, that the valuation of the first quarter of 2007-2008 was not reopened, such order was passed ex parte, without representation of the petitioner and contrary to settled legal principles. The same was also devoid of reasoning, and the valuation imposed was arbitrary in nature.

6. It is further argued that the insertion of Section 180(2)(ix) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to “the KMC Act”), in the Inspection Book (IB) entry for the second quarter of 2007-2008 was done surreptitiously and during the course of hearing, indicating mala fide intention. The initial notice of hearing failed to disclose any grounds of revision and was vague. The invocation of Section 180(2)(ix), which contemplates revision only under certain specific conditions, was unjustified. No new taxable event had occurred, and there was no basis for separating the valuation of land and building as distinct entities in the present case.

7. The petitioner submits that the comparison made by the Corporation with properties such as those situated at 2 and 3 Penn Road, 4 Alipore Park Palace Road, and 4 Hastings Park Road, is wholly misplaced. These properties are not only situated at significant distances but also differ fundamentally in character—being new constructions, multi-storied towers or commercial premises—unlike the petitioner’s old, owner-occupied residential building.

8. It is pointed out that the sudden inclusion of the appurtenant garden land into the scope of assessment is unwarranted and contrary to established practice. The lawn existed at all material times and its sudden valuation by the Hearing Officer under the guise of undervaluation amounts to an overreach of jurisdiction, particularly under Section 188 of the KMC Act. Such conduct is without authority and contrary t