- (1.) THESE four second appeals arise out of the same judgment. Seventeen suits were filed by the owners of different holdings against the Municipal Commissioners of Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality. The suits were heard analogously. Common questions of law were involved. The learned Munsif decreed five suits viz. , Suits Nos. 185, and 194 of 1950, 231 of 1951 and 19 of 1952 but dismissed the other twelve suits which included Title Suits Nos. 190 and. 193 of 1950. Fourteen appeals were filed - five by the Municipality in the aforesaid suits which were decreed and nine by the plaintiffs in nine out of the twelve suits dismissed by the learned Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeals filed by the Municipality, reversed the decrees of the learned Munsif in the aforesaid five suits and dismissed them. The learned Subordinate Judge further dismissed the other nine appeals preferred by the plaintiffs in the said nine other suits. The plaintiffs in Suits Nos. 190, 194, 191 and 193 of 1950 have filed these four second appeals.
(2.) THE common allegation made by the respective plaintiffs in their suits was that the valuations made by the assessor under the Bengal Municipal Act were not made in accordance with the law and the procedure prescribed for the same. There was non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Rules framed by the State Government under section 215 of the Act. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs made applications under section 148 of the Act for review of the valuations made but there was non-compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules made by the State government under section 215 of the Act. It was further said that the review applications were disposed of by an Administrator appointed by the State Government under section 554 of the Act but he was not competent to dispose of the said applications under section 149 of the Act. The special allegations made by the plaintiffs in suits Nos. 190 and 194 of 1950 were that when their review applications under section 148 were pending the Administrator enhanced the valuations of the respective holdings under section 138 (1) (c) of the Act which he had no jurisdiction to do. Various other allegations were made but we are not concerned with them in these second appeals. The defence of the Municipality was that the valuation was made in accordance with law and procedure, that there was no non-compliance with Rules 8 and 14 of the Rules framed by the State Government under section 215 of the Act and that the Administrator had jurisdiction to dispose of the review applications as also to increase the valuation under section 138 (1) (c) of the Act.
(3.) APPEALS Nos. 213 and 214 relate to suits Nos. 190 and 194. Mr. Mitter appears for the appellants in these appeals. Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 relate to suits Nos. 193 and 191, Mr. Roy Choudhury appears for the appellants. The allegation that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rules 8 and 14 of the Rules framed by the Slate Government under section 215 of the Act is common to all these suits. I shall first deal with this allegation. Whether there was non-compliance with these rules or not is after all a question of fact. The learned Munsif did not find that there was such non-compliance. Before the learned Subordinate Judge various arguments were advanced to show that there was such non-compliance but the learned Subordinate Judge repelled those arguments. Towards the end of his judgment, however, the learned Subordinate Judge has said ; it may be that the assessors did not strictly follow the rules framed under section 215 (a) and (b) of the Act. But in my opinion non-observance of such rules, if any, will not invalidate their acts. " this shows that the learned Subordinate Judge did not find that there was non-compliance with the rules. He assumed a hypothetical case and proceeded to consider the consequences. But nowhere I find any finding made by the learned Subordinate Judge that there was non-compliance with the rules. I have said this is a question of fact and I should not enter into that question. The objection about non-compliance of the rules must, therefore, fail.;