AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
The point of the challenge in this writ petition relates to the revision of the Annual Valuation (for short ''AV'') of the premises in issue on the basis of a purported acceptance/ consent given on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2/ companies/ assessees/ registered owners of the said premises in issue.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Inspection Book (for short ''IB'') of the respondents/ Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) revising the AV (supra) to a steep Rs.5 lakhs with effect from 02/13-14 records the purported no-objection of the authorised representative of the petitioners to such revision. Mr. Chatterjee argues that notwithstanding the no-objection as recorded in the IB (supra) read with the declaration on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 by their authorised representatives/ Directors, no annual valuation could be revised beyond and against the clear statutory prescription of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short ''the KMC Act).
Taking this Court to the writ petition, Mr. Chatterjee particularly relies upon paragraph 10 thereof which shows the annual valuation of three premises within the same ward/ locality. The three premises have a substantially lower revised annual valuation compared to the premises in issue of the petitioners. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee points out that the respondents/ KMC were under an obligation to specify the rationale/ criteria behind revision of the assessment/ AV as enjoined under Section 180 of the KMC Act read with the procedural formalities contained in the subsequent Sections related to such reassessment.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners have a right to claim a revision of the assessment on the basis of the statutory prescription and, in this connection, Mr. Chatterjee relies upon the authorities of Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936 (Equivalent citations : (1936) 38 BOMLR 987) and (2012)3 WBLR (Cal) 916 PS Group Reality Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Appearing for the respondents/ KMC, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel, takes the point that the petitioners did not object through their authorised representatives/ Directors consciously. The petitioners were never without the knowledge of the fact that the proposed annual valuation was sought to be revised and, both, as recorded in the IB as well as the declaration on affidavit, the petitioners made it clear that they have no objection to the proposed revision.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the respondents/ KMC although justified in taking the stand that the petitioners were conscious of their no-objection/ declaration on affidavit accepting the revision in the annual valuation, however, this Court is unable to read into the concept of the purported consent of the authorised representatives/ Directors on behalf of the petitioners that such consent can be granted de hors the right to be treated equally at par with the other assessees in the ward/ locality under the statute.
At this stage, this Court cannot be oblivious to the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition which discloses the revised annual valuation of other premises/ buildings within the same locality/ ward to be of a nature which does not correspond to the valuation assessed of the petitioners'' premises. Taking further notice of the parameters/ factors to be read into a revision of the annual valuation exercise, this Court, notwithstanding the purported acceptance on consent of the petitioners through their authorised representatives/ Directors as brought on record, cannot read such consent/ no-objection to be in conflict with the right of the petitioners to be similarly/ equally treated under a statutory exercise.
Accordingly, the impugned revised annual valuation stands set aside.
The respondent no. 2/ Municipal Commissioner is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 7th September, 2017 within eight weeks from date in accordance with law. The petitioners shall cooperate in the exercise as directed above to be completed by the respondent no. 2/ Municipal Commissioner.
It will be open to the respondent no. 2/ Municipal Commissioner to reassess the valuation on merits and take appropriate steps.
WP No. 644 of 2017 stands, accordingly, disposed of.