Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order passed by the Hearing Officer determining the annual valuation owned and occupied by the petitioners on the ground floor and premises no. 18, Collin Lane, Kolkata 700 016, primarily on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and a serious prejudice being caused to them.
(2.) The writ petition proceeds that the petitioners along with their mother became the owners of the ground floor measuring 2942 square feet of the said premises by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance executed in the year 2002. Subsequently, the mother executed a Deed of Gift dated 11.02.2004 transferring her right, title and interest in favour of the petitioners. Before the determination of the impugned annual valuation, the entire property was valued at Rs. 84,510/- . By the proposed valuation the Hearing Officer fixed the annual valuation of entire building at Rs. 4,97,340/- out of which Rs. 4,08,240/- is assessed for the ground floor as the same is used for commercial purposes. It is stated that neither the Notice of Hearing proposes to enhance the annual valuation of the premises was served upon the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any intimation thereof. It is only after the service of the Rate Card issued upon the petitioner, the petitioner could come to know of such enhanced annual valuation and filed an application raising protest against the same on 24th March, 2015. Though the date of hearing was intimated to the petitioner on the said application but thereafter no decision has been communicated to the petitioner.
(3.) The Corporation is contesting the instant writ petition and filed the Affidavit-inOpposition before this Court. According to the Corporation, the petitioner never intimated to the Corporation that he has purchased the ground floor of the said building and therefore the Corporation was no aware that the petitioner has acquired the right, title and interest therein. It is further stated that the notice was served upon the recorded owners and their representative participated in the hearing process and objected to the proposed valuation. The Hearing Officer after considering the objection, so raised by the recorded owners proceeded to determine the annual valuation. It is thus denied that there was no opportunity of hearing given by the Hearing Officer before determining the annual valuation of the entire building finally.;