- (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed on March 12, 2004 by the petitioner, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is directed against the order dated December 9, 2003 passed in M.A. Appeal No. 3341 of 2001 in respect of the Flat No. 2, 1st Floor, A/63A/2, Prince Golam Hossain Shah Road, Kolkata Municipal Ward No. 95, Kolkata 700 032 whereby the learned Judge of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, K.M.C., has been pleased to assess the annual valuation of the said flat and the car parking space and fix rent at the rate of Re. 0.50 paise as per sq.ft. per month for covering area of the flat and at the rate of Re. 0.25 paise per sq.ft. per month for car parking space.
(2.) It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 1980 and the opposite party No. 1 is an assessee under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the owner of the flat mentioned above and the opposite party No. 2 is the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. It has also been stated that Hearing Officer IV of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation upon hearing the assessee and also considering the materials available on record vide letter dated 08.11.2001 determined the Annual Value of the flat at Rs. 7,860/- with effect from 4/2000- 01. It has further been stated that the opposite party No. 1 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said determination of Annual Value preferred statutory appeals before the opposite party No. 2 who has been pleased to pass the impugned order without following the rules and the procedure for determination of Annual Value. The present petitioner moved this Court by filing the instant application challenging the order passed in the said M.A. Appeal No. 3341 of 2001 by the opposite party No. 2 on the grounds that the Tribunal acted mechanically and absolutely without applying its mind in determining the Annual Value for the relevant period without appreciating the practicability of such determination and proceeded wrongly and arrived at the erroneous conclusion and hence the instant application has been filed for setting aside the impugned order.
(3.) At the time of hearing the learned advocate for petitioner submitted that concerning other flats of the present building premises involved in C.O. 714 of 2004 and C.O. 716 of 2004 a judgment has been delivered by this Court this day, i.e., on 12.12.2013 on the basis of an analogous hearing with C.O. 712 of 2004 and C.O. 715 of 2004 and the said judgment is before this Court.;