SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The Court : Let the affidavit in service filed in Court today be taken on record.
(2.) This appeal and the application for stay arise out of an order dated 20th December, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1138 of 2016 ( Sri Pyarelal Jalan vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors .). The appellants before us are the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its Municipal Commissioner. The appellants seek to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is setout in its entirety, hereinbelow : "The Court: The writ petitioner challenges two annual valuations of the subject premises made on 18th January 2016 and 14th July 2016. Mr. Arindam Banerjee maintains that the two assessment orders are entirely without jurisdiction. He says that from the annual valuation of Rs. 1,20,270/- on and from third quarter 2005- 06 it was increased seven-fold to Rs. 8,70,860/-, out of which Rs. 3,99,640/- was the assessment on account of nonresidential use of the building. He also submitted that the basis for arriving at the much increased valuation as disclosed in the said valuations was the valuation made at market value per sq.ft. basis. On the other hand, Mr. Achintya Banerjee for the Corporation questions the locus standi of the petitioner in maintaining the writ application. He submitted that this valuation had been rightly made on correct principles of law. He also prayed for directions for filing affidavits to establish the circumstances in which the said valuations were arrived at. In my opinion, all the necessary papers are before the Court. It is a pure and simple question of valuation. No affidavits are necessary. It should be referred to the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The said Tribunal and not this Court is the best judge to pronounce whether the correct mode of valuation has been arrived at by the Corporation. Hence only the Tribunal could say whether the annual valuation arrived at was correct or should be reduced. However, to prefer an appeal before the said Tribunal, the entire disputed tax amount has to be deposited as a pre-condition to hearing the appeal. In my opinion, when the case of the petitioner is that the increase in valuation has been seven-fold in one assessment, then in that case asking the petitioner to deposit the entire differential tax would cause hardship to him. In those circumstances, provided the petitioner files an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal by 15th February 2017, it will admit the same upon the petitioner depositing 30% of the differential tax. It goes without saying that the municipal tax payable before the increase in valuation would continue to be paid by the petitioner. The Tribunal will hear out the appeal on merits, and pronounce a reasoned order within three months of filing of the appeal. The respondent Corporation will be at liberty to realise the balance tax, if any, upon the determination so made by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, provided the Appeal before it is filed according to the conditions set in this order. All the papers are before the Court. Affidavits were not invited. Allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to be not admitted. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities."
(3.) According to the appellants, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitioner to prefer statutory appeal reduced the payment of property tax to 30% of the differential tax in contravention of sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The further case of the appellants is with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition being left undecided where the locus standi of the writ petitioner was questionable, since admittedly the original assessee died as far as back in the year 1994 and till date, the writ petitioner never bothered to mutate his name as the legal heir.;