High CourtsSingle Bench(1975) 06 CAL CK 0015

Hari Narayan Mukherjee, Receiver vs Administrator, Corporation of Calcutta

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 9 June 1975 · Citation: (1976) 1 ILR (Cal) 586

HON’BLE JUDGES
Banerjee, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Rule No. 6247 (W) of 1972

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 351 words

Banerjee, J.—In this Rule the Petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Corporation of Calcutta for payment of taxes in respect of 50 Purnadas Road. The assessment previous to the present one was Rs. 8,160 which was raised to Rs. 16,800. The property was under the Receiver. On receipt of enhancement bill, the Receiver returned the bill saying that he had not given notice u/s 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and, therefore, the assessment was wholly wrong.

2.

Mr. Bhunia, on behalf of the Petitioner, contended that the Corporation knew that the property was under the Receiver, but no notice was served on the Receiver. Notice was served on the recorded owners.

3.

Mr. Baksi, on behalf of the Respondents, contended that the Petitioner''s name not having been mutated in the Corporation Register, the Petitioner was not entitled to the notice and the notice was duly served on the recorded owners. In my opinion, Mr. Baksi is correct in his submission. Owner has been defined in Section 2(53) of the Calcutta Municipal Act upon which it appears that the Receiver is included within the term owner, but Section 187(3) makes it clear that unless the Receiver''s name is recorded in the Municipal register, he is not entitled to a notice. Section 187(3)is in the following terms:

No owner or occupier whose name is not entered in the assessment book shall be entitled to object that any bill, notice of demand, warrant or other notice of any kind required by this Act to be served on the owner or occupier of any land or building, has not been made out in his own name.

4.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in the assessment order inasmuch as the Petitioner''s name has not been recorded in the Corporation register, he is not entitled to notice and the Corporation issued notice to the recorded owners in accordance with Section 187(3) of the Act. In the circumstances, this Rule must stand discharged.

5.

There will be no order as to costs.

6.

Let operation of this order remain stayed for four weeks.