S.P.Talukdar, J. - (1.) Common questions of fact and law being involved in the three cases between the same parties, those have been heard at a time on consent of both sides.
(2.) The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, as petitioner, filed three applications under Article 227 of the Constitution. Those are directed against order dated 01.03.2000 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAA 388A/97, MAA 387A/97 and MAA 384A/97 arising out of the order passed by the Hearing Officer-III dated 11.03.1997 in respect of Space No. 4A, 4th Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
(3.) Grievances of the petitioner/KMC may briefly be stated as follows : Hearing Officer-Ill after due service of notice and hearing both parties by order dated 11.03.1997 fixed the annual valuation (AV) in respect of the disputed case-property for three different periods of time. Opposite party No. 1, M/s. P. K. Commercial Co. & Ltd., preferred three separate appeals, as referred to earlier. Relying upon the decision referred to by the appellant, in MAA 542 of 1983 passed by Small Causes Court, Calcutta, the Tribunal decided the said appeals. Due to misplacement of the relevant file there has been delay in getting opinion of the counsel and consequently in filing the applications. The impugned order is bad and based on erroneous interpretation of law. The Tribunal in passing the said order failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by calculating the annual valuation in such a way that it is even below the annual valuation prayed for by the appellant before it. It acted illegally in not granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the additional evidence which was adduced by the appellant by way of referring to a decision without any formal application.;