Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The Court: The first petitioner is a Club being association of a large number of individuals and the rest of the petitioners are the office bearers and/or member of the first petitioner. The Club is the lessee and under a registered deed of lease dated 1st February 1888 executed and registered by the Secretary of the State of India Council (now Government of India) in respect of a piece and parcel of land being 1, Strand Road, Calcutta - 700 001 (hereinafter referred to as the said land) at and for consideration mentioned therein. The Club has since been in possession and/or occupation of the said land comprised of the said premises by erecting pucca structure.
(2.) The respondent Corporation has served notice dated 4th October 2002 along with four hearing notices dated 5th October 2002 addressing Garrison Engineer Eastern C.S.R., C.L.P. Government of India and the first petitioner as being persons responsible under Sections 184(3) and 184(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) fixing annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 592,650/- with effect from 1st quarter 1984-85, 1986-87, Rs. 677,430/- with effect from 1992-93 and Rs. 781,750/ with effect from 1988-89.
(3.) In the notice and the bills the premises number has been wrongly mentioned as being 111 Strand Road, Calcutta. By the said notice objection was invited for hearing for fixing the annual valuation of the said premises. The petitioners filed objection however, at the time of the hearing the petitioner could not be present in view of the cease-work of the learned Lawyers. As such the matter was heard ex parte and the valuation was made behind the back of the petitioners. Orders fixing valuation have been passed without showing any reason whatsoever. The grievance of the petitioners is that the notices are vague without any basis to which no effective objection could be raised as such the hearing should not have been taken pursuant to these impugned notices. Moreover, no demand for payment of Tax can be made as the property belongs to the Government and the petitioners are merely occupants as such under law no property tax can be imposed in relation to the said property. The subsequent demands by raising bills are wholly without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the Act. The petitioners at no point of time were served with any notice of hearing nor any bill was raised demanding payment of property tax. As such the order of valuation and the demand for payment of property tax must be set aside and quashed.;