Mukharji, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment delivered and order passed by B. N. Banerjee, J. on the 20th May, 1968. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of certain assessment orders in respect of premises held by the petitioner as mentioned in the petition as well as the rate bills issued in respect thereof. The petitioner company is the owner of 17 different premises in the Park Street at Calcutta. The case of the petitioner shortly is that, prior to coming to operation of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 thee were certain valuations in respect of the said premises. The Calcutta Municipal Act came into operation on the 1st of May, 1952. Some time prior to 26th June, 1954, according to the petitioner, there was a general revaluation of all lands and buildings in Ward No.53, in which ward the said premises at that time were, made under section 172(2) of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner has contended that as a result of the said general revaluation under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the old valuation made or subsisting under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, came to an end. It has been further asserted that with effect from the 2nd quarter of 1954-55 the Assessor of the Corporation of Calcutta purported to amalgamate different premises of the petitioner in the manner following and imposed the following annual valuation thereon: - (A) Premises Nos. 21 and 23, Park Street into one premises numbered as 21, Park Street, annual value Rs.23,722/-. (B) Premises No.25A, 25B and 27A, Park street into one premises numbered as 27A, Park Street, annual value Rs.2,17,023/-. (C) Premises Nos. 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 55 and 57, Park Street into one premises numbered as 29, Park Street annual value Rs.79,097/-.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner was informed of the amalgamation and of the new valuation by notices issued under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, all dated 6th July, 1954. The petitioner objected to the amalgamation and imposition of the new valuation. In as much as the Corporation of Calcutta did not entertain the objection, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule Nisi in Matter No. 135 of 1964. The said rule was made absolute by Sinha, J. (as his Lordship then was) on the 5th of December, 1955. By the said order passed by this Court, the Corporation was restrained and prohibited from giving effect to the said notices issued by the Corporation under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and dated 6th of July, 1954 and also from giving effect to any amalgamation of the Municipal premises contained in the said notices, without following the procedure laid down and the order resulting in the said amalgamation and also the impugned notices resulting and the proceedings, mentioned in the said Matter No. 135 of 1954, were quashed. The said order had further directed that the said order would not prevent the Corporation from proceeding in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, in as much as there was only one valuation on the amalgamated premises and the same had been quashed by the aforesaid order, there remained no valuation for the premises for the purpose of being assessed to consolidated rates with effect from the 2nd quarter of 1954-55.
(3.) The petitioner has further stated that thereafter the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta issued several notices under section 175 read with section 207(2) proviso (i) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1954, proposing to amalgamate the said premises of the petitioner and to value the amalgamated premises under section 172(3) (b) read with section 174(4) of the said Act with effect from the 2nd quarter of 1954-55. The petitioner has mentioned in the petition the said several notices. Objections were filed on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction or power to amalgamate the said premises and as such the notices were illegal. The petitioner has stated further that thereafter the Assessor and the Corporation of Calcutta had sent to the petitioner certain special notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, intimating to the petitioner of the valuation assessed on the petitioner's premises on the basis of the estimated rent less statutory allowances and further intimated to the petitioner the said valuation would remain in force from the 2nd quarter of 1954-55 until further valuation. The petitioner has further stated about the particulars of the said notices in the petition and the same have been noted in the judgment under appeal. On 25th of April, 1960 the petitioner filed written objection under section 181 of the Act to the notices contending that (a) the assessor had no jurisdiction to make the said valuation and the assessment on the said premises and the notices were illegal and issued without jurisdiction, (b) that there was no valuation of the premises and as such the assessor had no jurisdiction to effect an increase further on what was alleged by the petitioner as non-existing valuation, (c) that no notice under section 178 having been issued or published after the amalgamation and as the valuation had been quashed by this Court as mentioned hereinbefore, the assessor had no jurisdiction to issue the said notices for retrospective assessment with effect from 2nd quarter of 1954-55. It appears that in the meantime, on 18th of April, 1960 the Assistant Assessor of the Corporation of Calcutta wrote four several letters to the petitioner intimating that the 4 notices of amalgamation as mentioned hereinbefore, some dated 9th of March, 1960 and some dated 12th of March, 1960 stood cancelled and the premises would be separately valued. Objection was again filed by the petitioner and the Corporation purporting to act under section 182, according to the petitioner, passed an order on the 22nd March, 1963 restoring the existing valuation, that is to say, the valuation as it stood prior to 1954 in place of the increased valuation with effect from the 2nd quarter of 1954-55. In the result the valuation of the several premises stood at certain figures and these have been indicated in the said notices and noted in the judgment under appeal. It is not material for the purpose of this appeal to refer to them in detail. The petitioner again disputed validity of the aforesaid orders on the ground the respondents lacked jurisdiction and had acted arbitrarily in making the said orders and as such the orders were nullities and secondly, on the ground the respondents had no power to restore old valuation, and thirdly, on the ground that as the valuations had not been gone during the currency of the valuation period the same were nullities. The Corporation of Calcutta on the 12th of September, 1960 issued special notices under section 160 of the Act intimating to the petitioner about certain increase in the valuation on the petitioners' said several 17 premises with effect from 2nd quarter of 1960-61. The valuation proposed to be increased have been mentioned in the petition and noted in the judgment under appeal. It is also not material for the purpose of this appeal to refer to them in detail. The petitioner filed objection to the said notices again on the ground that the notices were illegal and without jurisdiction that there was no previous valuation on the said premises and as such the Corporation of Calcutta had no jurisdiction to issue said notices, or to assess, and that as notices under section 178 had not been issued or published after the amalgamation orders had been quashed by this Court the Corporation and the Assessor lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices or to increase the valuation. As a result of the said objections filed there was an order of reduction of the valuation of premises in the matter indicted in the said order and mentioned in the petition and noted in the judgment under appeal. The aforesaid orders were communicated to the petitioner by letters dated 1st of April, 1963.;