S.Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India against the Commissioner of Asansol Municipality and State of West Bengal praying infer alia for an appropriate Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect or to take steps pursuant to the purported notices under section 155 (4) of the Bengal Muincipal Act,1932 in any manner whatsoever and on the basis of the order of the Review Committee relating to assessment made by the Assessor and the Commissioner of Asansol Municipality respectively and/ or to realize any rates and/or taxes on the basis thereof from the petitioner Corporation. It is stated in detail that the petitioner-Corporation is the owner along others of the 3 (three) properties in the town of Asansol in the District of Burdwan known as "holding No. 195/147, Kumarpur" earlier known as holding No. 123 and holding No. 147/l, Kumarpur since re-numbered as holding No. 196/147/l, Kumarpur and holding No. 324 R. N. Road, Asansol since re-numbered as holding No. 323/382, R. N. Road, Asansol". Time to time additions and alterations were made and on new constructions were raised over the said holding and the Commissioner of Asansol Municipality made valuation for the purpose of assessment previously. The petitioner obtained Civil Rule No. 3 139 (W) of 1974 against the assessment of the annual valuation. Against the disposal of the said Rule an appeal was preferred being F.M.A. No. 592 of 1979. On 1st April, 1978, the respondent No. 1 on the basis of a fresh assessment raised the and value of the holding No. 1951/147 from Rs. 4,03.300/- to Rs. 4,83.960/-. The petitioner preferred an application for review under section 148 of the Bengal Municipal Act against the said enhancement on 27th April, 1978 \\hich has since been disposed in purporting to exercise of the powers under section 148 of Bengal Municipal Act. The petitioner has constructed a staff quarter in the said holding and the respondent No. 1 Municipality enhanced the annual valuation of the said holding again and determined the amount of Rs. 8,33,284/- as the annual valuation of the said holding with effect from 1.7.78. According to the petitioner, such assessment and the determination of the annual valuation were absolutely whimsical and wrongful. On or about 14th September, 1982, the respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner under section 134 of the Bengal Municipal Act to file a return of the annual valuation of the said holding and according to the petitioner, the Assessor has no jurisdiction and/or authority to issue the said notice to file any return. Without prejudice however, the petitioner filed its return of valuation on 12th November, 1982. It is stated that except the staff quarter the other 3 (three) buildings arc self-occupied by the petitioner Corporation and the Divisional Officer is located, The present valuation of the 3 (three) buildings on the basis of cost of construction has been duly added and on the basis whereof returns have been filed with Revenue Authorities being Rs. 4,48.943.21P., Rs. 13,88,867.60P., and Rs. 14,93,809.36P., respectively totaling in all Rs. 33.31,620.17P. It is alleged that there is payment of licence fee paid by the occupiers and the same is realized to the tune of Rs. 2,29,000/ - annually. In this circumstances, the annual value of the said holding has to be determined under section 128 of the Bengali Municipal Act on the basis of gross rental value. In respect of second holding at No. 196/147/l, Kumarpur Road, there is Branch Officer-cum-Investment Officer and the building was constructed on July, 1981. The respondent No. 1 assessed the annual value of the said at Rs. 1,25,000/- alleging amongst others that the respondent No. I entitled to charge the maximum rate of 71/2 per cent on the value of the said building for the purpose of annual valuation and assessed Rs. 14,375/- a total annual rental valuation. They preferred an application for review on 8th April, 1982. Pending hearing of the review petition. there is a further assessment in April 1983 and the respondent No. 1 revised the annual valuation of the said holding from Rs. 1,25,000,- to Rs. 1,75,725/- and the fresh objection has been filed. Regarding the third holding, the annual valuation has been raised double and the steps taken by the Municipal Authority are alleged to be irregular and illegal. The Review Committee finally heard and disposed of the reviewed petitions against the impugned assessments, the decision of the revenue authorities has since been challenged. Elaborating all these points, the writ petitioner has to come to this Court on the ground that the respondent Asansol Municipality proceeded illegally in determining annual value of the staff quarter on the basis of construction while the staff quarter is not self-occupied and it is admittedly occupied by the employees of the petitioner who are paying licence fee. It is obligatory on the part of the Municipality to proceed under section 158(l) of the Bengal Municipal Act in determining annual value of the holding No.1. The respondent municipality and the Review Committee went beyond the jurisdiction in king the cost of construction and the acts done and/or caused to have been done in determining annual valuation and assessing aforesaid 3 (three) buildings are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. There is arbitrary, excessive and malafide attempt to realize more taxes and the steps are contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law. The decision of the Review Committee appears to be unjust and unfound, as alleged.
(2.) The writ petition is seriously contested by the Municipal Authority. There are affidavits placing on record that all these steps were taken according to the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act to determine the annual valuation of the buildings in question and the assessments have been made strictly according to law. At all relevant point of time, proper opportunities were given and the order were made by considering the objections and/or review petition. The present writ petition appears to be thoroughly misconceived.
(3.) Upon perusal of the materials on record and patiently hearing the writ petitioner, it appears that there is serious objection by the L.I.C. Authorities that L.I.C. Buildings are not liable to be assessed for payment of municipal taxes. Besides, the steps taken by the Municipal Authority are contrary to law.;