[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Jaydip Ganguly vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ... on 4 February, 2026
OD- 9
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/910/2025
JAYDIP GANGULY
VS
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 4th February, 2026
Appearance:
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Mohana Das, Adv.
Mrs. Tanushree Das, Adv.
....for the petitioner
Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
...for the KMC
1.
This matter has a chequered history. The petitioner had previously moved a
writ petition which was registered as WPA No.19160 of 2014, inter alia,
challenging two notices dated 17th April, 2013 and 13th May, 2013 issued by
the Chief Manager (Revenue), Kolkata Municipal Corporation whereby the
dates of hearing were fixed on 11th May, 2013 and 15th May, 2013 in respect
of revision of annual valuation with effect from the 2nd quarter and 3rd
quarter 2012-13 respectively. The ground for revision was new valuation on
separation/apportionment/amalgamation on estimated annual rent less
statutory allowance for repairs. The annual valuation in case of notice dated
17th April, 2013 was proposed at Rs.35,920/-, while by the notice dated 13th
May, 2013 the annual valuation was proposed at Rs.21,790/-.
2. According to the petitioner, it was urged that under Section 184 of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
Act') by issuing notice for fixing annual valuation and property tax, the
concerned authority of the KMC is required to maintain a gap of one month
between the date of the notice and the date of the hearing. In the instant
case, the notice was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 184 of the
Act.
3. Following the above, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had by noting that
the notice dated 17th April, 2013 was issued against a dead person and that
the notice period as provided in Section 184 of the said Act had not been
maintained, quashed the aforesaid two notices dated 17th April, 2013 and
13th May, 2013 and accordingly directed the KMC to issue a fresh notice in
consideration of the application made by the petitioner seeking
apportionment and separation and while taking a decision on the application
of the petitioner for apportionment and separation, the concerned authority
was at liberty to take a decision on mutation of the property which devolved
on the petitioner.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, fresh notices were issued and the petitioner
participated in the hearing process. Ultimately, by an order dated 8th April,
2024, the hearing was concluded by determining the annual valuation since
3rd quarter of 2012-13 at Rs.21,790/-.
5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner and would
submit that the aforesaid determination of annual valuation is irregular. The
petitioner had never acceded to the annual valuation as proposed. According
to him, the petitioner had been fighting tooth and nail for several years and,
as such, there was no question on the part of the petitioner to accede to the
proposed annual valuation. According to him, the officials who were present
at the hearing had forced the petitioner to accept the annual valuation under
threat of dire consequences and, accordingly, the petitioner was compelled to
sign on the impugned order sheet. In the facts as noted here, the entire
proceedings should be quashed and the matter remanded back to the
authorities.
6. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the municipal. He would submit
that in the instant case, records would reflect that since the petitioner had
accepted the annual valuation from the 3rd quarter of 2012-13 to be
Rs.21,791/-, no contrary statement can be accepted. He would further
submit that since there is an appellate provision, the writ petition should not
be entertained.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I
find admittedly, in this case the previous two notices as noted above revising
the annual valuation had been quashed though on technical grounds.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the municipality had issued notices and the
petitioner had participated in such hearing. Records would also reveal that
on 8th April, 2024, the petitioner was personally present and according to the
recording made in the order, the petitioner agrees to accept the annual
valuation since the 3rd quarter of 2012-13 at Rs.21,791/-. To more fully
appreciate the same, the relevant portion of the order is extracted herein.
"Sri Joydeep Ganguly recorded owner appears. Heard Sri Sudipta Mondal,
DAC & Sri N. Laskar, Inspector. After a long discussion Sri Ganguly agrees to
accept AV since 3/2012-13 at Rs.21,790/-. Inform. As per report drawn by
KMC official, new addition of the building is found.
Accordingly Sri Ganguly is requested to submit a detailed by addition,
Seen order and agreed.
Sd/- (illegible) Sd/- Sd/ (illegible) Sd/-
Joydip Ganguly. 8/4/24 8/4/24 Sudipta Mandal
DAC"
8. Although the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid order was accepted
by the petitioner under the threat of dire consequences and the official of the
municipality has forced the petitioner to accept the same, there is no
immediate or contemporaneous rebuttal with regard to the same. In fact,
between 8th April, 2024 and 29th April, 2024 i.e. for 21 days, the petitioner
chose not to make any communication or hold out that he was forced to
accept the valuation. Subsequently, on 30th April 2024, the petitioner
through an Advocate's letter stated that the municipality had forced the
petitioner to accept the same under pressure and he put his signature. There
is no police complaint made by the petitioner in this regard. Though, a
statement in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 27 of
the writ petition, such a statement has not even been affirmed by the
petitioner as true to his knowledge. The same has been affirmed in the
affidavit as submissions. Particulars of event or the words exchanged have
also not been provided. No statement has been made as to who had in
particular forced the petitioner to sign and accept the valuation. Vague
assertion has been made to wriggle out of the acceptance of the annual
valuation. Further these allegations deal with disputed questions of fact
which cannot be conveniently decided by this Court.
9. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no scope to enter into
the disputed questions of fact especially when an appellate forum is
available.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
akg/
