- (1.) Both sides are present at the time of resumed hearing. After hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellant Kolkata Municipal Corproation and the opposite party on the last occasion the points for determination arose whether the Tribunal in its order impugned in this application was justified for the purpose of making annual valuation of the property in dispute to treat the vacant land as part of the building standing on it.
(2.) Mr. Das Adhikary submits that the Tribunal in its order relied on earlier assessment for the third quarter of 1976-77 and third quarter of 1982-83 to hold that in earlier assessment vacant land was not treated as a separate unit for assessment of valuation, but, according to Mr. Das Adhikary, this observation of the Tribunal was neither legal nor justified simply because in the 1980 Act there has been section 174(2) read with sub-section (4A) which would come to indicate that under section 174(1) there must be separate assessment for the purpose of annual valuation both of standing building and also of vacant land.
(3.) Mr. Das Adhikary contends by making a comparative study of section 168 of the old Act 1951 with section 174 sub-section (2) and sub section (4A) of Act 1980 one would find that with definite purpose of such insertion was made so that Corporation may not be deprived of its revenue for non-assessment of vacant land. Mr. Das Adhikary, therefore, contends that the annual valuation for the year third quarter of 1998-99 ahould be set aside and the Tribunal should be called upon for hearing both sides to make assessment regarding the vacant land and, thereafter, to arrive at annual valuation as permissible under the rules.;