Alil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) This is an application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in F. M. A. No. 238 of 1969. The appeal arose out of an annual valuation made by the Corporation of Calcutta in respect of a basti situated in premises No. 105/3, Ultadanga Main Roaa within the Corporation of Calcutta, for assessment of consolidated rates with effect from 3rd quarter of 1951-52. The annual valuation was made departmentally by the Corporation at Rs. 20240/-. An objection was preferred by the owner, the petitioner before us, contending inter alia that the assessment was illegal, exorbitant and without jurisdiction, while the previous annual valuation was Rs. 7420/- from third quarter of 1950-51 as ultimately determined by the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah on May 21, 1954-On objection filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner (II) reduced the valuation from Rs. 20240/- to Rs. 15304/-. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners to the said Court and the valuation was further reduced to Rs. 7544. On an appeal to this Court by the Corporation this valuation was set aside and the case was sent back on remand for rehearing. After remand the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah affirmed the valuation made by the Deputy Commissioner (II) and dismissed the appeal. Against that decision the present appeal was taken by the petitioner which also was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as already stated. Against this decision, the present application has been preferred by the appellant owner.
(2.) In the present case, the question in dispute is whether the excess valuation made by the Deputy Commissioner (II) and affirmed by the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah as also by this Court has been in accordance with law and within the powers of the Corporation. On the valuation test, Mr. Noni Kumar Chakravarty learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the value or the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of the first instance and in appeal was and is much above Rs. 20,000/- inasmuch as the property in dispute namely premises No. 105/3, Ultadanga Main Road could be valued at not less than Rs. 1,48,400/- being the capitalised value of the annual valuation of Rs. 7420/- at twenty times of the annual valuation which according to him is the accepted normal standard. Mr. Chakravarty accordingly submitted that Clause (a) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution is sati-fied in so far as the valuation is concerned. These contentions have been disputed by Mr. Subodh Kumar Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation who has contended that the basis of valuation made out by the petitioner if wrong and untenable. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the question with which the appeal is concerned was the excess annual valuation of Rs. 15,304/- over the then existing valuation of Rs. 7420/-. The subject-matter of the dispute in all these proceedings is therefore the difference in valuation only and this cannot be stated to be to satisfy the requirement of the said Clause (a) of Article 133 (1).
(3.) As was pointed out in Ramritlal Saha v. Sachindra Narayan Roy, that the value of the property concerned in appeal is something different from the value of the subject-matter in dispute. Though we are concerned with the increased annual valuation of the municipal premises in question the appeal is really not concerned with the property itself but only with the legality and validity of the excess annual valuation. In that view, it could not be proper, in our opinion, to assess the capitalised value of the annual valuation as the value of the subject-matter in this proceeding. Accordingly we are of opinion that the requirement of Clause (a) of Article 133 (1) has not been satisfied in the instant case.;