AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable The Acting Chief Justice Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Thisappeal, at the instance of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation [hereafter to be referred to as " the Corporation" for short] u/s 411 of the Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949 [hereafter to be referred to as " the Act" for short], is directed against a judgment and order dated August 19, 1992, passed by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court No. 13, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 12464 of 1990, thereby allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and reducing the valuation assessed by the municipal authority.
Being dissatisfied, the Corporation has come up with the present appeal.
It appears from the record that being dissatisfied with the enhancement of valuation from Rs. 1205/-to Rs. 16812/-, the assessee preferred an appeal u/s 406 of the said Act. A specific point taken by the assessee before the court below was that before enhancing the valuation, no special notice was given to the assessee and at the same time, the bill issued by the Corporation indicated that such bill was not issued by the appropriate authority, but by one Arvind Shukla and Mr. Pravin Nayak, who were Assessor and Collector. It appears that in the written statement filed before the court below, no specific plea was taken by the municipal authority that before enhancing the valuation, the special notice was given. On the other hand, in the written statement, it was stated by the Corporation that in view of the long drawn procedure and so many rules and provisions of the Act, there might be some bonafide mistake on the part of the municipal authority and its officer.
On the basis of the aforesaid material, the court below set aside the order of enhancement of valuation and re-assessed the same by fixing it at Rs. 4.00 per 10 sq.mts. for the financial year 1985-86 to 1990-91.
Being dissatisfied, the Corporation has come up with the present appeal.
None appears on behalf of the assessee in spite of service.
Afterhearing Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that the municipal authority did not assert before the court below that before enhancement of the valuation, any notice was issued against the assessee. We thus find that there was no justification for enhancement of valuation from Rs. 1205/-to Rs. 16,812/-without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
We,however, finds substance in the contention of Ms. Jhaveri that fixation of the amount of valuation by the court below was based on no material and the assessment of the valuation at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per 10 sq.mt. was based on no evidence.
In such circumstances, although we uphold the finding of the court below that enhancement of valuation was made without issuing any special notice as required under the said Act, we set aside the fixation of valuation made by the court below as the same is not based on any material on record.
We, consequently remand the matter back to the municipal authority by directing the authority to give notice to the assessee for fixation of the valuation and to arrive at the just valuation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to place the material before the municipal authority showing the exact valuation at the relevant point of time having regard to the valuation of similar properties situated in the same locality.
With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.