S.K. Datta, J. - (1.) The Court: This rule was obtained by the petitioner challenging certain demands made by the Corporation of Calcutta on account of consolidated rates for premises No. 105 Park Street, Calcutta. The petitioner, according to his case, purchased from Norm Construction Company P. Ltd. Flat No. 22 (4th floor) of Kohinoor building situate at the said premises on the basis of registered conveyance dated July 23, 1971. The said building contains fifty flats of various sizes and the petitioner became the owner of flat No. 22 by his purchase as stated above. On September 7, 1971 the petitioner wrote to the Accessor of the Corporation requesting him to mutate his name as owner of the said flat and to issue rate bills in his name in respect thereof. The Sub -Assessor informed the petitioner by letter dated November 18, 1972 that the request "for apportionment of valuation resulting in issue of separate rate -bills" could not be taken till the valuation of the entire premises was finalised, which was then under consideration. The petitioner did not hear further from the Corporation till he received its letter dated February 2, 1973, enclosing eight notices of demand under Sec. 236 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The particulars of the demands are as follows: The demands bearing serial Nos. 1 and 2 were addressed to the petitioner as owner and occupier respectively of house No. 105 while the other demands did not bear his name at all. The petitioner stated that he is the owner of Flat No. 22 which is entirely independent and capable of separate enjoyment and accordingly it was contended that the petitioner was entitled to separate valuation and number or alternatively to apportionment of valuation out of the valuation for the entire premises No. 105 Park Street, Calcutta. In violation of the provisions of Chapter XI, Part 4, in particular of Ss. 174 176, 180, 182, 187, 188 and other provisions of the Act, the Corporation has imposed consolidated rates in respect of both shares of taxes of the premises treating the different flats as one unit while the petitioner is the owner only of Flat No. 22. It was further contended that the impugned levy and demand on the petitioner is in violation of Articles 19, 31 and 265of the Constitution. The petitioner through his Advocate demanded justice of the Commissioner and the Administrator of the Corporation by letter dated February 23, 1973 but to no effect. In these circumstances the petitioner moved this Court in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction praying inter alia for a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned demands and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus forbearing the said officers of the Corporation from giving effect to the same. On this application a rule nisi was issued on April 2, 1973 in terms of the prayer and an interim order was also issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said demands -pending the rule. The respondents -the Administrator, the Commissioner and the Assessor of the Corporation appeared on service of the rule and opposed the application by filing a joint affidavit -in -opposition affirmed by Pratip Kumar Ghosh, its Assessing Inspector, on June 4, 1973. It was stated there in that by his purchase the petitioner become a joint owner of the premises there by be coming jointly and separately liable for all rates and taxes in respect of premises No. 105 Park Street, where in there are 48 flats on upper floors and 7 offices and shops on the ground floor. The prayer of the petitioner for mutation of name also for issue of separate rate bills could not be entertained without physical separation of the said flat from the rest of the building making the same independent and capable of being separately enjoyed and the valuation of the said premises with effect from 4th quarter 1972 -73 had not been finalised. The flats comprised in the building are not capable of being enjoyed separately from each other. The premises Nos. 105A, 105B, 105C and 105D were amalgamated and valued as premises No. 105 from 2nd quarter 1968 -69 which had been accepted by all and the -petitioner has been jointly and severally liable to pay the demands. As petitioner's name was not mutated in the assessment register he was not entitled to receive any notice addressed in his name. The bills containing demands were on basis of general valuation from 4th quarter of 1966 -67 which had become final and the petitioner becoming a co -owner on July 23, 1971 was not entitled to any notice. Further his name not having recorded so far, he is also not entitled to any notice, though due notice as required was given to persons interested while general notice was also given. It was lastly contended that, as the petitioner had become a co -owner he was jointly and severally liable for the demands impugned and there was no illegality or defect in procedure in taking steps for recovery of the dues. The respondents disputed the submissions made in the petition and submitted that the petitioner failed to lodge objection within fortnight as provided which was also not availed of. The rule in the premises should be discharged.
(2.) The petitioner filed an affidavit -in -reply reiterating his allegations and contentions made in the petition. It was further stated that the petitioner moved this Court for upholding his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and alternative remedy could never be a bar to defeat his application. It was contended that as the petitioner is a owner of a divided portion of the premises and he could not be jointly or severally liable for outstanding rates and taxes for the entire premises.
(3.) At the hearing Mr. Gopal Chakrabarty learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner admittedly was a co -owner of a divided portion of the property and he could not be liable in law, jointly or severally, for the entire consolidated rates and taxes of the entire premises. The Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 in terms provide for inclusion of the petitioner's name in Corporation records as owner and also to apportionment of his specific share of taxes, for non -payment whereof he would be liable. The imposition of demand for the outstanding taxes in respect of the entire premises for a colossal amount of over Rs. 1.30 lakhs, when the flat itself was purchased at Rupees forty thousand, is an unreasonable restriction in the exercise of the fundamental right to hold property guaranteed by Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution.;