CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. SHEIKH KEAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes passed under Section 141, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It appears that on the 17 of January 1923 the executive officer of the corporation, pursuant to the power with which he was invested under Secs.127 to 138, Municipal Act, assessed the property in suit, No. 6, Raj Mohan Street, Calcutta, for the consolidated rate of Calcutta at an annual value of Rules 14, 310. Under Section 139 of the Act the assessee lodged an objection to the amount of the annual value which had been assessed upon his property. Under Section 140 the executive officer investigated the assesee's objection, and passed an order reducing the amount of the original assessment from Rs. 14,310 to Rs. 10, 278. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the order of the executive officer, appealed to the Court of Small Causes pursuant to Section 141 of the Act. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes further reduced the assessment, and held that the annual value of the house at the time of the assessment was Rs. 5,508. The Corporation of Calcutta have preferred the present appeal under Section 142 of the Act from the decision of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes. It was contended by the learned advocate who appeared for the assessee that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an objection to the amount of the valuation which had been assessed by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes because the determination of the annual value of the premises was a finding of fact which this Court under Section 100, Civil <JGN>Page</JGN> 2 of 6 P.C. could not override in second appeal. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention.

(2.) The appeal to the High Court under Section 142 is not preferred under the Civil P.C., but pursuant to the special jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of Small Causes and-the High Court under the Calcutta Municipal Act. Further, even assuming that Section 100, Civil P.C. is applicable, in my opinion, this appealing not an appeal within the ambit of Section 100, Civil P.C., because the order passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes was not an appeal from an order passed by a judicial officer. The scheme of the Calcutta Municipal Act provides that in the first instance the executive officer should ascertain, by such means as are available to him, the annual value of the premises to be assessed, and such annual value shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent, for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent.

(3.) Having estimated the annual value of the premises as best he could in the light of such information as was available to him it became the duty of the executive officer to give the notices provided in the Act in order that any person dissatisfied with the valuation might lodge an objection against it. An objection duly lodged is then to ha investigated by the executive officer and after the investigation has been concluded, an order will be passed by the executive officer stating the amount which he holds to be the annual value, and this order is recorded in the official register. In my opinion in performing the functions prescribed under Secs.127 to 140, Calcutta Municipal Act, the executive officer is acting in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity. That this is so, I think, is clear from a consideration of the relevant sections of the Act, but if the analogous functions of the collector under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) are regarded, it will be observed that the powers of the collector are wider than those which the executive officer under the Municipal Act is invested, and yet it has been held that in performing his functions with respect to the valuation of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act the collector is acting in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity : Durga Das Rakhit V/s. Queen Empress [1900] 27 Cal. 820 and Ezra V/s. Secy. of State [1905] 32 Cal. 605. The reasoning upon which those cases were based is appplicable in the present case, and, in my opinion, both upon principle and upon authority, the functions of the executive officer under Secs.127 to 140, Calcutta Municipal Act, are those of an administrative and not of a judicial officer. Both in India and in England it is the policy of the legislature that in the preliminary stages of assessment for local and general taxes the assessing officer should endeavour amicably to settle assessments without the investigation being circumscribed by the restrictions of the law of evidence. <JGN>Page</JGN> 3 of 6 It is, to say the least, perfectly intelligible that the expert official charged with the duty of fixing a value should be possessed of all the information in the hands of the department, and should at the same time avail himself of all that is offered at the enquiry, his ultimate duty being not to conclude the owner by his so-called award, but to fix the sum which in his best judgment is the value and should be offered. It is not implied in this observation that the collector would be precluded by anything in the statute from inviting at the enquiry the criticism of the owner on any information he had in his hands, if he thought that in the circumstances this would advance knowledge: Per Lord Robertson in Ezra V/s. Secy. of State [1905] 32 Cal. 605.