- (1.) In this Rule the Petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Corporation of Calcutta for payment of taxes in respect of 50 Purnadas Road. The assessment previous to the present one was Rs. 8,160 which was raised to Rs. 16,800. The property was under the Receiver. On receipt of enhancement bill, the Receiver returned the bill saying that he had not given notice under Section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and, therefore, the assessment was wholly wrong.
(2.) Mr. Bhunia, on behalf of the Petitioner, contended that the Corporation knew that the property was under the Receiver, but no notice was served on the Receiver. Notice was served on the recorded owners.
(3.) Mr. Baksi, on behalf of the Respondents, contended that the Petitioner's name not having been mutated in the Corporation Register, the Petitioner was not entitled to the notice and the notice was duly served on the recorded owners. In my opinion, Mr. Baksi is correct in his submission. Owner has been defined in Section 2(53) of the Calcutta Municipal Act upon which it appears that the Receiver is included within the term owner, but Section 187(3) makes it clear that unless the Receiver's name is recorded in the Municipal register, he is not entitled to a notice. Section 187(3)is in the following terms: No owner or occupier whose name is not entered in the assessment book shall be entitled to object that any bill, notice of demand, warrant or other notice of any kind required by this Act to be served on the owner or occupier of any land or building, has not been made out in his own name.;