Mpmc Private Limited vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2983 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Mpmc Private Limited vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors on 11 November, 2025

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                         (ORIGINAL SIDE)
 Present:
 The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

                          WPO 2235 of 2022
                            IA No: GA/1/2022

                        MPMC Private Limited
                                 Vs.
                Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.


 For the Petitioner               : Mr. Mainak Bose, ld. Sr. Adv.
                                  : Mr. Farhan Ghaffar
                                  : Ms. Swati Bhattacharyya


 For the KMC                      : Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh
                                   : Ms. Manisha Nath


 For respondent No. 5             : Ms. Aparajita Ghosh

: Mr. Souvik Ghosh

Judgment on : 11.11.2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The petitioner/company being the lessor, was first entangled with the

respondent no. 5/lessee/Bank for due compliance of the terms of

agreement inter se. A suit, appeal, execution proceeding and appeal from

the order in execution proceeding followed, discussion in detail of which

may be gone into in this judgment later, if necessary. For the time being

it would suffice to mention that in appeals filed by the respondent no.

5/lessee/Bank being No. APO 173 and 174 both of 2019, this Court, vide

order dated January 8, 2020 was pleased to give liberty to the parties to

apply to the respondent /Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to

determine the proportionate share of municipal taxes and surcharge for

the area of the premises under occupation of the respondent No.

5/Bank, during the period from April 2006 to September, 2011. The

Court expressed hope that either of the parties may make an appropriate

application under Section 178 (6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Act, 1980 (in short KMC Act 1980) within the stipulated time.

2. The Corporation should determine the proportionate share municipal tax

and surcharge payable by the parties respectively, after affording them

reasonable opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the order of the Appeal

Court dated January 8, 2020, the petitioners submitted a

representation dated January 20, 2020.

3. During the course of the proceedings before the KMC, the petitioner has

received a written communication dated February 23, 2021 inter alia

stating therein, that annual valuation of the property is proposed to be

enhanced thereby from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007. The municipal

authorities proposed the annual valuation from the 1st quarter of 2006-

2007 to the 2nd quarter of 2006-2007 at the rate of Rs. 45,48,670/-,

whereas attempted to make intermediate revision and enhancement of

the annual valuation with effect from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007 to Rs.

95,32,740/- while determining the proportionate municipal tax payable.

The annual valuation on and from 4th quarter of 2006-2007 till the 4th

quarter of 2016-2017 was accordingly stood revised. Hearing was held on

July 30, 2021, in which the authorised representative of the writ

petitioner took part and raised objection as to the proposed enhancement

of annual valuation of the property. However, by dint of a written

communication dated September 2, 2021. The writ petitioner was

served with the information of revised annual valuation together with the

rate card and the supplementary bills. Subsequently, by dint of another

letter dated September 16, 2021. The KMC informed the proportionate

total liability of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5/ Bank, in

accordance with the revised rate of annual valuation to be to the tune of

Rs. 56,94,399/- for the writ petitioner and Rs.1,51,05,383/- for the

respondent No. 5/Bank.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the intermediate

revision of the annual valuation of the property by the KMC and has

prayed for the relief that the order of revision of annual valuation of the

property with effect from the 3rd quarter of 2006-2007 be set aside and

the rate card and supplementary bills issued be directed to be revoked

immediately.

5. Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ

petitioner has submitted that the action of the municipal authorities in

revising the annual valuation from the 3rd quarter of 2006 - 2007 is only

arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, contrary to law and without authority

and jurisdiction. In doing so, according to him, the respondent/KMC has

acted beyond scope of the order of the Appeal Court and the same is in

excess of authority and jurisdiction bestowed upon the said respondent,

by the Court in the said order dated January 8, 2020. According to the

writ petitioner the purported notices of hearing issued by the

respondent/KMC proposing intermediate revision of annual valuation are

unsustainable and illegal in view of the same having not specified a

cogent, viable and acceptable ground for such a revision in accordance

with law. That, the purported notice of hearing is contrary to the

provisions of the KMC Act 1980 and assessment based on such notice is

bad in law and liable to be set aside. Mr. Bose has submitted that the

action of the respondent authority in initiating a revision of annual

valuation while making a determination of the proportionate share of tax

payable by the respondent/Bank in terms of the order of the Appeal

Court dated January 8, 2020, is an act in excess of authority and

jurisdiction, which is liable to be quashed being unauthorised and illegal.

He says that the municipal authorities, while revising the annual

valuation of the property, have failed to take into consideration that no

grounds existed as specified in section 180(2) of the KMC Act, 1980,

authorising and enabling the respondent authority to revise the annual

valuation of the property. He says that the Court‟s order as well as the

terms and conditions as enumerated in the terms of settlement agreed

upon between the parties do not constitute a ground under the law for

reassessment of annual valuation of the property in terms of the said

provision of law. He says that neither in the terms of settlement entered

into between the parties nor in the order of the Appeal Court, the

municipal authorities have been given liberty to revise the annual

valuation of the property. Therefore, according to him, the scope and

authority of the respondent/KMC in ascertaining the proportionate tax

liability ought to have remained within the scope and purview of the

order of the Appeal Court, which actually is the foundation for the said

respondent authority to take up the exercise by the respondent/KMC of

apportionment of tax liability. He says that the respondents have acted

on conjectures, surmise, on extraneous considerations and only

irrationally apart from having exercised gross arbitrariness, in revising

the annual valuation of the property, without any lawful or appropriate

grounds.

6. With reference to Sections 192(1) (iv) and (vii) of the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation Act, 1980 (as amended), Mr. Bose has submitted that the

statute has provided for revision of annual value of the property and the

property tax payable thereupon and the incidents of such revision should

generally be erection, recreation, addition alteration of a building or

property, in accordance with law. He says that in that event, a

proceeding as enumerated in Sections 186 to 190 of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 should mandatorily be followed. He

says that the instant is not an usual proceeding of assessment of

valuation or taxation over a property. But that, it is generated by virtue

of the Appeal Court‟s order dated January 8, 2020 and through the

representation dated January 20, 2020 submitted by the petitioner,

pursuant to the said order of the Court. Hence, the respondent/ Kolkata

Municipal Corporation could not have travelled beyond scope of the

Court‟s order in conducting the proceeding, which is only to the extent of

apportionment of tax liability, for the relevant period. Therefore, beyond

the scope of the Court‟s order as above, the respondent authority ought

not to have acted, he submits. The purported action of the respondent/

Kolkata Municipal Corporation in revising the annual valuation of the

property is in one hand, beyond the scope of the Appeal Court‟s order

and on the other is illegal having not complied with the mandatory

arrangement made for the purpose in Sections 186 to 190 of the Act of

1980. Mr. Bose has submitted that a statutory authority can act strictly

in accordance with the statute or not at all. He says that valuation of the

property was already done by the authority for the relevant period of time

and taxes were being remitted. In that event, the respondent/ Kolkata

Municipal Corporation had no authority to recall its own previous order

as regards valuation for the purpose to propose a higher valuation. In

support of his contentions as above, Mr. Bose has cited a decision of this

Court in Sunil Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal & Ors.

reported at 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 395. He says that once a valuation

has been arrived at under Section 184, the same could have only

reopened in terms of grounds mentioned in Section 180 or Section 192 of

the Act of 1980. Since, none are available in this case, revision and

enhancement of proper valuation is only baseless and not in compliance

with the statutory provisions. In this regard, he has further referred to

the decision of this Court in M/s. Emerald Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported at 2015 SCC OnLine

Cal 7643.

7. It has further been submitted that after introduction of the „unit area

assessment‟ system, vide amendment of the statute in the year 2017, the

petitioner is to be subjected to pay property tax only with respect of the

area actually in his occupation and also that incidents when such

measures may be undertaken against an assessee have also been

amended but not followed by the respondent authority, while revising the

annual valuation of the property.

8. He has further stated that the ratio of the decision Sahujain Charitable

Society & Anr. vs. The Kolkata Muncipal Corporation & Ors.

reported at 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 4793, squarely applies to the facts of

the instant case. He indicates that the Court in the same has stated that

the statutory power of the collector to suo moto call for the record and

pass orders as it may deem fit and proper "at any time", does not mean

that such power is only unguided and arbitrary. That, the Court has held

that any piece of legislature where unguided or uncanalised power is

given to an authority is invalid to that extent. The Court has held that to

make the provision of Section 179 (2) second proviso workable, the words

"within the reasonable time" should be implied to have suffixed after the

phrase "at any time". He says that the Court, in the said judgment has

decided that revision of annual valuation to enhance the same can only

be reasonably done and recovered within a period of three years from the

date such sum becomes due and payable and not beyond. He says that

the authority, in this case, has undertaken such an exercise beyond the

said reasonable period of time, which has rendered the entire exercise as

vitiated.

9. For all the reasons as discussed above, Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior

advocate for the writ petitioner has sought for quashing of the order of

the respondent/KMC for revision of annual valuation from the 3rd

quarter of 2020 and setting aside of the connected supplementary bills

and the rate card.

10. According to the respondent/KMC, the same has done an exercise only

to determine afresh the annual valuation of the concerned property with

respect to the period from the 3rd quarter of the year 2006-2007, after

cancellation of the previous assessment of annual valuation of the said

property. According to the said respondent in doing so it has acted only

within the scope of the statute which cannot be called into question by

the writ petitioner. It has stated that annual valuation of the property

was fixed on the basis of the rent payable by the respondent/Bank as

there was no disclosure on part of either the petitioner on the

respondent/Bank as to the execution of the registered indenture of lease

between them. Later on, dispute cropped up between the said two

entities and in Court they have settled their dispute by entering into the

„terms of settlement‟, which has provided for the rent payable by the

respondent/Bank to the petitioner for the portion of property they

continue to occupy but no stipulations were made therein with respect to

the municipal taxes and surcharges payable to the respondent/KMC.

Accordingly, it has become imperative for the respondent/KMC to

exercise its power under section 192 of the KMC Act, 1980, for

determination of annual valuation afresh, on the basis of the annual rent

as arrived at upon taking into consideration the rate of rent to be paid in

terms of the said settlement arrived at between the parties and only after

cancellation of the previous annual valuation for the concerned period of

time. This has resulted into the difference in the latest calculation of

annual valuation in comparison to such calculation done earlier. That,

very naturally, the parties have to now remit the property tax in

accordance with the reassessed/revised higher rate of annual valuation.

It has contended that according to the order of the Court, the

respondent/Bank is now duty bound to remit the property tax

proportionate to the area retained by the same as shown in the „terms of

settlement‟. Similarly, the writ petitioner is also under the obligation to

pay the revised tax proportionate to the area in which it has taken back

from the possession of the respondent/Bank. The respondent/KMC has

submitted that in accordance with the Court‟s order, the writ petitioner

shall only be authorised to apply to the Corporation for correction of any

error perceived to have been made in the determination of tax and

apportionment thereof, done by the KMC authorities. That, otherwise it

shall be bound by whatever the Corporation has determined as regards

the quantum of annual valuation of the property and the tax and

surcharges payable on the basis of the same.

11. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, while representing the respondent/KMC has

submitted categorically that there is no procedural lapse on the part of

the said respondent as alleged, in revisiting the valuation of the property.

He submits that the respondent has acted only on the basis of and in

compliance with the directions made by the Court in this regard.

According to Mr. Ghosh, considering the period for which the respondent

had to determine the annual valuation of the property and

apportionment thereof, it has proceeded in accordance with the

unamended provision of law, for redetermination of the annual valuation.

He has submitted further that the respondent/Bank has raised no

objection with regard to the revision in annual valuation of the property,

the revised valuation and the amount of tax assessed on the basis of

such revised annual valuation of the property. It has been submitted that

the respondent/Bank has remitted the proportionate share of enhanced

amount of tax and surcharge the respondent/KMC as claimed on the

basis of such revised annual valuation.

12. Mr. Ghosh has raised his objection as to the maintainability of the

instant writ petition for the reason that the petitioner, if aggrieved with

the amount of tax claimed, should have resorted to the statutory remedy

of filing an appeal against the said order in terms of section 189 of the

KMC Act, 1980. He says that in view of availability of an efficacious

alternative statutory remedy, the instant writ petition may not be

entertained by this Court.

13. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that 3 years limitation period as to why so

under section 573 of the KMC Act, 1980, would not be considered to be

applicable in case of recovery of outstanding taxes. In this regard he has

referred to a judgment of this Court in Calcutta Municipal Corporation

vs Abdul Halim Gaznavi Molla and Ors. reported at AIR 1998 Cal

345 to submit that the Court has categorically held therein that if any

limitation for recovery of any taxes was to be provided by the legislators,

the same should have been done by using a clear and unequivocal

language in Chapter XVI of the Act of 1980 itself. To refute the argument

advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner relying upon the judgment in

Sahujain's case (supra), the ratio decided in this judgment has been

strongly relied upon that the Court has held therein that there cannot be

any intendment with regard to imposition of tax as well as a recovery of

tax, nor any presumption can be raised that upon expiry of certain

period such taxes cannot be recovered.

14. According to the said respondent, the „unit area assessment‟ scheme

introduced vide the Amendment Act of 2017, with effect from the 1st

quarter of 2017-2018 has no retrospective effect and shall not affect the

prescribed statutory procedure for assessing the annual valuation of the

property or the property tax payable by the assessee before introduction

of such amendment. Hence the respondent has objections asto the way

the petitioner has tried to portray that amended provisions of law are

duly attracted in its case.

15. According to Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, there is neither any arbitrariness or

illegality committed by the respondent/KMC in revising the annual

valuation of the property, with effect from the 3rd quarter of the year

2006 - 2007 and raising supplementary bills or recovery of the enhanced

amount of tax as against the writ petitioner. Hence, he says that the

instant writ petition is baseless and may be dismissed.

16. The respondent/Bank has also been represented in this case. The same

has substantially supported the stand taken by the respondent/KMC, in

this writ petition. Ms. Aparajita Ghosh learned Advocate, representing

the Bank has submitted that, in a suit filed by the writ petitioner being

No. C.S. 270 of 2006, the plaintiff/ writ petitioner has obtained a decree

on July 31, 2008, in which the Bank was directed to deliver possession

of the vacant suit property, to the plaintiff/writ petitioner. The said

decree was challenged by the Bank in an appeal being No. APO. 238 of

2008 which ended in a decree in accordance with the „terms of

settlement' entered into by the parties. The present writ petitioner sought

to execute the decree in an execution proceeding No. E.C. 287 of 2011.

Vide an order dated September 10, 2019 in the said execution case, the

Court has directed the Bank to pay a sum towards municipal rates and

taxes to the tune of Rs. 67,50,000/-, inclusive of surcharge and together

with interest.

17. Challenging the two orders passed in the said execution case, the Bank

filed two appeals No. APO 173 of 2019 and APO 174 of 2019

respectively. The Appeal Court vide order dated January 8, 2020, held

and directed as follows:-

".......It is evident from the records that the amount claimed to be due in the tabular statement filed by the Respondent herein was not supported by requisite calculations in the affidavit accompanying the tabular statement......."

".......What is apparent from the terms of settlement of August 3, 2010 is that the appellant herein was liable to pay municipal taxes at the rate of 50% in respect of the area occupied by the appellant at the relevant premises and the entirety of the surcharge relatable to the area. On the other hand, in one of the earlier claims relied upon by the lessor in it's execution application, it sought to make the appellant lessee liable for two-third of the proportionate amount despite the clear use of the figure "50%" in terms of settlement of August 3, 2010. Even later, particularly, in the supplementary affidavits filed by the lessor in January, 2017 and in March, 2017, the lessor tried to interpret proportionate with reference to the quantum of rent paid by the appellant against the total quantum of rate received from the entirety of the premises in question. Clearly, this was contrary to the terms of settlement since such terms provided for the area occupied by the appellant herein and indicated that the proportionate 50% of the municipal taxes and 100% of surcharge would be payable by the appellant herein......"

".......Thus, if the municipal taxes are assessed in respect of the premises in question in entirety the area under occupation of the appellant would be the basis for determining the proportion of the municipal taxes and surcharge that the appellant would be liable to pay for the entire period. In such context the appellant refers to Section 178 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and says that sub-section (6) thereof permits both an owner and a lessee in respect of any premises to apply to the Corporation for the

Corporation to indicate the proportionate share of the relevant party regarding the municipal rates and taxes.

In view of such provision, the parties are left free to apply to the Corporation for the Corporation to determine what would be the proportionate share of municipal taxes and surcharge for the area at the premises under the occupation of the appellant herein during the period April, 2006 to September, 2011. Upon such determination being arrived at, the appellant herein will be liable to pay 50% of the municipal taxes and the full complement of the surcharge that is indicated by the Corporation, subject to the right that both the appellant and the respondent may have to apply to the Corporation for correction of any error perceived to have been made in the relevant determination"

18. Matters were remanded back to the execution Court vide the Court's

order dated September 30, 2021, which is as follows:-

"......We admit the appeal dispensing with all other formalities and dispose of the same with the direction that the respondent with be at liberty to take out a fresh application before the executing court to execute the decree dated 31st July, 2008 which was subsequently modified by the decree passed by the division bench on 4th August, 2010 in accordance with the terms of settlement executed by and between the parties on 3rd August, 2010. While considering the execution application, the executing court will take into account the order of the division bench dated 8th January, 2020 together with the said reports of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and any exception to them that may be taken.

All points are kept open before the executing court......"

19. Ms. Aparajita Ghosh has submitted that on 06.04.2023 Canara Bank made

payment of an amount of Rs.1,26,21,725/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six

Lakhs Twenty One Thousands Seven Hundred and Twenty Five) only to Kolkata

Municipal Corporation towards Bank's share of Municipal Taxes and Surcharge

for the period of September, 2006 to September, 2011 after adjusting the

amounts paid by the Bank to MPMC towards Bank's share of Municipal Taxed

and Surcharge for the self-same period for the area under the occupation of the

Bank.

20. It appears that the dispute cropped up between the writ petitioner and

the respondent/Bank concerning due implementation of the contractual

terms entered into between them vide an agreement for lease, effected on

and from April 28, 1986 for a period of 21 years. The subject matter of

the lease was 16146.75 sq. ft. area comprising the entire ground floor,

mezzanine floor, first floor and second floor of the premises No. 27

Maharaja Trilokya Sarani, Kolkata (formarly known as 27, Brabourne

Road). The indenture of lease has provided inter alia that the

lessee/respondent No.5/Bank would be liable for payment of 50% of the

municipal rates and taxes and all other outgoing charges along with the

monthly rent, service charges and maintenance charges at certain rates

stipulated therein, in respect of the portions let out to them. Several

litigations followed and subsequently the parties have entered into the

„terms of settlement‟ in Court. The Court has also passed its order dated

January 8, 2020 directing thereby inter alia that, in accordance with the

„terms of settlement‟ entered into between the parties dated August 3,

2010 the Bank is liable to pay municipal taxes @ 50% in respect of the

area occupied by it in the premises concerned, whereas the petitioner

intended to make the Bank liable for two third of the proportionate

amount despite the settlement dated August 3, 2010 having stipulated

otherwise. Also that the petitioner has made endeavour to make the

apportionment effected with reference to the quantum of rent paid by the

Bank against the total quantum of rate received for the entirety of the

premises, which the Court addresses to be contrary to the terms of

settlement. It is the clear direction of the Court in appeal that if the

municipal taxes are assessed in respect of the premises in entirety, the

area under occupation of the Bank would be the basis for determining

the proportion of the municipal taxes and surcharge that the Bank would

be liable to pay for the entire period. Therefore the Appeal Court has

directed that the parties may apply to the Corporation in terms of section

178(6) of the KMC Act, 1980, seeking determination of the proportionate

share of municipal taxes and surcharge for the area at the premises

under occupation of the Bank during April 2006 to September 2011. The

Court has also directed that upon such determination being arrived at

the bank shall be liable to pay 50% of the municipal taxes and the full

complement of the surcharge, as determined by the Corporation.

21. It is noticeable that the Appeal Court has not spent a single word as to

what procedure to be adopted by the Corporation, in determination of the

proportionate tax payable by the respondent/Bank, with regard to the

portion of property it occupies. Obviously therefore, the Corporation has

to proceed in this regard in accordance with law. In the process the

Corporation has made intermediate revision of the annual valuation of

the property with effect from 3rd quarter of 2006-2007, regarding which

the writ petitioner is aggrieved. It has challenged the decision making

process of the respondent authority on multifarious grounds like the

incidents of revision of annual valuation of the property as enumerated

under the law are not fulfilled with respect to the concerned property and

that its annual valuation was already determined from a prior date and

taxes were being paid in accordance with the same. Also, that no change

in annual valuation of the property could have been introduced in

accordance with the amended law as regards „unit area assessment‟

scheme, due to nonfulfillment of the preconditions for application of the

scheme. Further that according to the law settled by the judgment of this

Court, the respondent authority could not have reassessed and

redetermined annual valuation of the property beyond a period of last 3

years.

22. The question of applicability of the amended provision of law vide

Amendment Act of 2017 that is the scheme of „unit area assessment‟

arises in context of this case, since the relevant period of assessment is

much prior to coming into force of the said amendment and the

amendment having no effect of retrospective operation.

23. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation possesses extraordinary and wide-

ranging authority under Section 192 of the KMC Act, 1980, to revise

property valuations. Let the same be quoted bellow for benefit of

discussion:

"192. Amendment of Municipal Assessment Book.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 190 the Municipal Commissioner may, at any time, amend the Municipal Assessment Book--

(i) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or

(ii) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted together with valuation thereof; or

(iii) by striking out the name of any person [or any land or building] not liable for the payment of [property tax] thereupon; or

(iv) by increasing or decreasing for adequate reasons the amount of any annual value and of the [property tax] thereupon; or

(v) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to [property tax]; or

(vi) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident, in which case such alteration shall take effect from the date such erroneous valuation or assessment took effect; or

(vii) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building, erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment book, in which case such insertion or alteration shall take effect from the date such erection, re-erection, alteration or addition was made.

(2) (i) A notice of not less than fifteen days shall be given to the owner or to the lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of the land or building of the place, time and date on which any amendment of the Assessment Book is intended to be made under this section.

(ii) Any person on whom a notice of amendment is served under this at objection in writing to the Municipal Commissioner at least three days before the date fixed in the notice and the provisions of sections 186 to 190 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such objection."

24. The power under section 192 of the KMC Act, 1980, is extraordinary and

wide but not absolute and subject to couscous and fair exercise thereof.

Exercise thereof arbitrarily and without proper ground is subject to

judicial scrutiny thereof and also setting aside of the same in that case.

This power of the Municipal Commissioner under Section 192(1)(vi) is

extremely wide and can cover an unlimited period, irrespective of the

laws of limitation. The ratio decided in the case of Abdul Halim Gaznavi

Molla (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the instant case. It is not in each and every case the Municipal

Commissioner should exercise his discretion. This power is to be used

sparingly to rectify long standing errors.

25. According to the respondent/Corporation, neither of the parties have

ever disclosed before it about the lease agreement operating between the

parties. This fact is undisputed and therefore established in this case.

When in terms of the Court‟s order the respondent/Corporation

determines the proportionate taxes and surcharge payable by the

respondent/Bank, the same has dealt with the lease agreement as well

as the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Appeal Court.

This amounts to be the substantial and sufficient evidence as regards

error occurring in valuation of the property. Hence the authority has

considered for correction/modification/revision of valuation to be

necessary. In view of the facts and circumstances the Court does not find

any infirmity that the respondent authority in exercise of the

discretionary power under the aforesaid provision of law thought it

proper to revise the annual valuation of the property with effect from the

3rd quarter of 2006-2007. It is within the power of the respondent/KMC

to correct the valuation error, if any and this time it has exercised its

discretionary power just and properly, on the basis of sufficient evidence.

26. So far as the procedural aspect as challenged in this writ petition is

concerned, the Court finds that the respondent authority has proceeded

upon due issuance of notices and hearing of the parties. None of these

are denied or disputed in this case. Obviously, the writ petitioner has

disputed the final decision of the respondent of revision of the annual

valuation. However, the petitioner‟s dissatisfaction as to the decision of

the authority ipso facto is not enough to find non-consideration by the

authority of his objections. A reasonable opportunity of effective hearing

which includes consideration of objections raised if any, is what it takes

for the authority to observe the principles of natural justice in a

proceeding held by it. Failure of the said respondent authority to follow

the statutory procedure or the fundamental principles of natural justice

leading to procedural impropriety or any unfairness in the process is not

apparent here. So far as that aspect is taken care of by the said

respondent, no infirmity or illegality can be found as to the mode and

manner adopted in the process.

27. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is unable to accept the

grounds pleaded or the argument made as satisfactory or sufficient. This

leads to the obvious conclusion that the instant writ petition is liable to

be dismissed.

28. Hence, the writ petition WPO 2235 of 2022 is dismissed, along with

applications pending, if any.

29. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the

parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)