Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Kolkata Municipal ... vs Smt. Snehalata Khag & Ors on 6 September, 2022
03. 06.09.2022
Ct. No.6
Tanmoy
M.A.T. 308 of 2020
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
-Versus-
Smt. Snehalata Khag & Ors.
With
IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2021
With
IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2021
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.,
Mr. Fazlul Haque, Adv.
...for the appellants.
Mr. Pralay Kar, Adv.,
Ms. Debasree Dhamali, Adv.,
Ms. Riya Ghosh, Adv.
...for the respondent Bank.
In Re: IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2021
This is an application for condonation of delay of
one (1) day in filing the appeal, as noted by the Stamp
Reporter. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is
condoned. The application being IA No: C.A.N. 1 of
2021 in M.A.T. 308 of 2020 is disposed of.
In Re: M.A.T. 308 of 2020
With
IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2021
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated January 7, 2020, whereby W.P. No. 4961(W) of
2019 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge.
During pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.1,
writ petitioner, has passed away. Learned Advocate for
the appellant Kolkata Municipal Corporation (K.M.C.)
says that repeated efforts have been made to gather the
particulars of the legal heirs of the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner so that such persons can be brought on record
in the place and stead of the deceased respondent no.1.
However, the efforts have failed. Notices sent to the last
known address of the respondent no.1, have not been
responded to.
We have gone through the order under appeal. It
may not be necessary to bring on record the legal heirs of
the respondent no.1 since we are not inclined to interfere
with the order under appeal for the reasons stated
hereafter.
The respondent no.1/writ petitioner had approached
the learned Single Judge challenging a demand for arrear
property tax. An amount of approximately Rs.61 lakhs
was claimed by K.M.C.
The learned Judge noticed that a Receiver has been
appointed by a civil Court in respect of the concerned
property and there was a legal question as to whether or
not K.M.C. could attach the rent from the property
without obtaining leave from the civil Court. However, the
learned Judge observed that, that legal question need not
be gone into. The demand notice on the face of it is devoid
of necessary particulars and is vague. It also appears that
the writ petitioner was not granted an opportunity of
putting her case before the Competent Authority in the
Corporation. The learned Judge finally held as follows:-
"However, it is not necessary to decide whether the
Corporation can enforce its notice of attachment of rent without
having obtained leave from the Court, which appointed receiver
over the property, in respect of which there are arrear rates and
taxes due to it. Impugned notice does not even mention the
quarters, in respect of which the outstanding is claimed at in
excess of Rs.61 lakhs. Court in good conscience cannot sustain
such a notice in view of aforesaid disclosures regarding payment
of taxes up to December, 2009 and receipt produced for payment
of rate and tax against 4th quarter 2017-2018. As such,
impugned notice for attachment of rent is set aside. The
Corporation is at liberty to move in accordance with law, to
recover its arrear rates and taxes. Court has noticed absence of
respondent / bank. Court adversely presumes against said
respondent as having caused this situation of rates and taxes
having accumulated in arrears, if at all. Petitioner will obtain and
serve a copy of this on respondent / bank who is directed to
forthwith make upto date payment on rents etc. to petitioner,
acting in capacity of receiver, to enable her to ascertain from the
Corporation, its outstanding and liquidate the same, under
protest or without prejudice, if need be."
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We
see no apparent infirmity in the order under challenge. It
is not that the demand of the Corporation has been
nullified by the learned Single Judge. Being of the
opinion, that the demand notice is not sufficiently specific
and does not contain necessary particulars, the learned
Judge quashed the notice, reserving liberty to the
Corporation to proceed in accordance with law for
recovery of arrear property tax, if any. We see no reason
to interfere with the order under appeal. The same is
affirmed.
The appeal being M.A.T. 308 of 2020 and the
connected application being IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2021 are
accordingly dismissed.
Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
