OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/1066/2021 with CO/2033/2021 ALPHA STITCH ART PRIVATE LIMITED vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN Date : 17th January, 2025.

For the petitioner appearing in WPO 1066/2021: Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.

Mr. R.N. Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Tonoya Ghosh, Adv.

For the respondent/ opposite party appearing in WPO 1066/2021: Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Tanushree Das, Adv. Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv.

For the petitioner/ KMC appearing in CO/2033/2021: Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Tanushree Das, Adv. Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv.

For the respondent appearing in CO/2033/2021: Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.

Mr. R.N. Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Tonoya Ghosh, Adv.

1. The Court:- In WPO 1066 of 2021 as filed by the writ petitioner and in CO/2033/2021 as filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC in short), the subject matter is identical, i.e. the judgment and order dated November 08, 2017 as passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 2nd Bench, (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal in short).

2. In WPO 1066 of 2021, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ against KMC as well as against its functionaries for implementation of the aforesaid order as passed by the said Tribunal, whereas in CO/2033/2021, the KMC has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the aforesaid order as passed by the said Tribunal.

3. Since in the aforementioned writ petition and in the civil revisional application, the subject matter is identical, both the matters have been tagged together by an earlier order. Hearing of both the matters was also taken up analogously and this Court thus proposes to dispose of the instant writ petition as well as the revisional application by a common order and judgment.

4. While passing the impugned order and judgment dated November 08, 2017, the said Tribunal allowed the appeal being appeal no. MAA- 315 of 2013 as preferred by the Writ Petitioner being an assessee. By the impugned judgment and order, the said Tribunal while allowing the said appeal reduced the annual valuation of the premises in question. As indicated hereinbefore, KMC felt aggrieved and preferred the instant Revisional Application. Since, the said order, which is under challenge before this Court, has not been given effect to, the writ petitioner by filing WPO 1066 of 2021 has prayed for implementation of the said order of the Tribunal.

5. In support of the instant revisional Application and against the writ petition, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the KMC, at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to the certified copy of the order which is under challenge before this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the impugned order, it would reveal that the subject property is a vacant plot of land at premises no. 21, Pottery Road, Kolkata-700015, and the same was leased out to the writ petitioner/ opposite party in the civil revisional Application by West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited by executing two separate deeds of lease. It is argued by Mr. Ghosh that the said leased out property is a vacant land.

6. Mr. Ghosh, in his next fold of submission, contends before this Court in the impugned judgment, the said Tribunal while assessing the annual valuation of the property of the writ petitioner wrongly placed reliance upon the unamended Section 174(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1980’). It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the said Tribunal also misdirected itself in placing its reliance upon a circular of the KMC being circular no. 35 of

2010-2011 dated 5th October, 2010.

7. In course of his submission, Mr. Ghosh draws attention of this Court to the provision of unamended Section 174(2) of the said Act of 1980. It is submitted by him that while assessing