The Kolkata Municipal ... vs Smt. Tandra Ghosh
2021 Latest Caselaw 675 Cal

28.01.2021

Item No.33 CP C.O. 3974 of 2018

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs.

Smt. Tandra Ghosh

Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath

.....for the petitioner.

Mr. Deb Kumar Sen Mr. Sourjya Roy

...for the opposite party.

This revisional application has been filed

challenging an order dated March 1, 2016, passed by

the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata

Municipal Corporation in Municipal Assessment

Appeal being MAA No. 852 of 2013. The said appeal

arose out of an order dated February 18, 2013

passed by the Hearing Officer -IV, Kolkata Municipal

Corporation.

The matter relates to fixation of the annual

valuation in respective of premises no. 52A, Dhiren

Dhar Sarani, Kolkata - 700 012, under Ward No. -

051 with effect from 3rd quarter of 2006-2007. The

Hearing Officer by an order dated February 18, 2013

assessed the annual valuation of the premises in

question w.e.f. 3rd quarter of 2006-2007 at Rs.

18,230/-. It is already on record that the opposite

party received rent @ Rs.2055.80 per month for her

share of the premises.

The opposite party being aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with the fixation of the annual valuation

as indicated above, preferred M.A.A. No. 852 of 2013

before the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal,

Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The learned tribunal

by an order dated March 1, 2016 allowed the appeal

and reduced the annual valuation to Rs.4950/-. The

learned tribunal ordered as follows:

"That the M.A.A. No. 852 of 2013 is allowed in

full on contest but without cost. The impugned order

dated 18.02.2013 of Hearing Officer IV of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation is hereby modified and the

ANNUAL VALUATION for premises, namely, 52A,

Dhiren Dhar Sarani, Kolkata - 700 012, having

Assessee No. 110510601180, w.e.f. 3/2006-07 is

fixed at Rs.4950/-.

Let a signed copy of this judgment be sent as

soon as possible to the Ld. Municipal Commissioner

for information under provision of Rule-25 of the

KMC (Taxation) Rules, 1987."

Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the

Kolkata Municipal Corporation has preferred this

revisional application.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner,

submits that the learned tribunal failed to assign any

reason in support of the reduction of the annual

valuation. He further submits that the annual

valuation ought to have been considered by the

learned tribunal on the basis of the market rent to be

fetched in terms of Section 174 of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation Act. The next contention of

Mr. Ghosh is that the learned tribunal failed to

consider the inspection book and also the judgment

referred to by the corporation at the time of hearing.

The learned tribunal further erred in taking the

increase of 6% of the annual valuation of the

premises which was a rate for the period w.e.f. 1st

quarter of 2003-2004.

Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for the

opposite party, submits that increase of 6% of the

valuation of the premises is an accepted procedure

followed in such cases and the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation has consistently followed the procedure.

He further submits that a bare perusal of the

calculation would indicate the reasons why the

annual valuation was reduced to Rs.4950/- from the

3rd quarter of 2006-2007 and no further reasons

were required to be assigned by the learned tribunal.

Having perused the order impugned before this

court, I find that the learned tribunal has mentioned

the history behind the opposite party's share in the

property to the extent of 49.36% but the learned

tribunal has failed to show any reason as to why the

annual valuation arrived at by the hearing officer was

erroneous and the same should be fixed at Rs.4950/-

w.e.f. the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007. As the order

impugned is bereft of reasons, the same is set aside

and quashed. In my opinion, when an order is

passed against a party, the aggrieved party has a

right to know the reasons which prevailed upon the

court or tribunal for having passed the said order.

Such reasons are missing and, as such, in my

opinion, justice would be subserved if the order

impugned is set aside and quashed and sent back to

the learned tribunal for hearing afresh.

MAA No. 852 of 2013 is sent back to the

learned tribunal for hearing afresh and for a decision

on the merits. The learned tribunal is requested to

dispose of the said appeal within a period of two

months from the date of communication of this

order.

The revisional application is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as

possible subject to compliance of all usual

formalities.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)