Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this case is the Gourepore Co, Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, which is the owner of a Jute Mill situate within the jurisdiction of the Naihati Municipality, in the District of 24-Parganas. It is a large Mill, and occupies a large tract of land and it appears that the total area covered is 172.2667 acres, of which the area covered by buildings is 97 bighas 8 cottas. There are warehouses, quarters, club-houses, markets and, various other kinds of structures or installations. It is stated that for nearly a quarter of a century, the Mills have constituted a single holding, being Holding No. 236, Ferry Fund Road, Ward No. V. The valuation of the holding up to March 1954-55 was Rs. 6,36,313. Some time in October 1954, with a view to prepare the quinquennial revision of assessment 1954-55, under Section 137 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), notice was given by the Assessor under Section 134. On the 9th of November 1954, the Manager of the petitioner-Company furnished a return. It showed the net value of the building as Rs. 59,43,945 and reasonable ground rent per annum as Rs. 24,820. A supplementary statement was also submitted under protest for the water-works installation.
(2.) The word 'holding' has been defined under the Act as follows:-- "Section 3(21): 'holding' means land held under one title or agreement and surrounded by one set of boundaries: Provided that where two or more adjoining holdings form part and parcel of the site or premises of a dwelling house, manufactory, warehouse or place of trade or business, such holdings shall be deemed to be one holding for the purposes of this Act. Explanation. -- Holdings separated by a street or other means of communication shall be deemed to be adjoining within the meaning of this proviso."
(3.) On the 13th of January 1955, some of the Commissioners of the Municipality together with certain of the rate-payers, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Municipality, the relevant part whereof is as follows: "According to Clause (21) of Section 3, 'holding' means land held under one title or agreement, and surrounded by one set of boundaries provided that where two or adjoining holdings form part or parcel of the site or premises..... of a manufactory such holding shall be deemed to be one holding. The mill holdings though separated by streets and surrounded by different sets of wall are regarded as one holding and are therefore under-assessed in comparison with similar holdings in the neighbourhood. Though the rent realised from the mill bustee and the mill markets can be ascertained easily, these are assessed not on rental basis but on its present market values plus the ground rent; but we find that according to Section 129, the final decision of the question whether any land is to be included within one holding rests with the Commissioners who can also determine whether lands within a Municipality are held under one title or agreement, so our humble suggestion is that the matter be first placed as early as possible before the Law Committee for ascertaining their views and then before the Commissioners at a meeting for their final decision....." It appears from a copy of the letter set out in Annexure 2 to the Affidavit in opposition affirmed by Ramkrishna De that on the very day that the letter was written, a direction was given, presumably by the Chairman, for calling a meeting for the purpose of considering the same on the 20th January 1955. The letter was officially received on the 14th January. A special meeting of the Commissioners of the Municipality was held on the 27th January 1955. It is admitted that no notice was given to the petitioner-Company of this meeting or that it was proposed to split up its Holding No. 236, Ferry Fund Road in Ward No. v. The Commissioners passed a resolution, the relevant part whereof is as follows:-- "Whereas questions have arisen as to whether the different lands in Holding No. 80, Ghosepara Road (Ward No. II). Holding No. 236, Ferry Road (Ward No. V) and Holding No. 74, Ghosepara Road (Ward No. I). And whereas the Commissioners after careful consideration have come to the finding that inclusion of so many parcels palpably separated from each other by different set of boundary within a single holding is not proper. Now, therefore, it is resolved that Holding No. 80, Ghosepara Road (Ward No. II) be split into 6 holdings and Holding No. 236, Ferry Fund Road, be split into 10 holdings as per Schedule 'A' given below, being butted and bounded according to description in the said Schedule 'A' and that fox the purpose of assessment these may be treated as separated holdings." In Schedule 'A', the said Holding No. 236, Ferry Road, Ward No. V, has been split up into 10 holdings. The petitioner-Company was thereupon, assessed on the basis of the 100 holdings, and notice of the new assessment being served upon the Company, it came to know for the first time that the original holding had been split up into ten holdings. On or about the 25th April 1955, the Company preferred an objection under Section 148, against the valuation and assessment. Objection was taken to the splitting up of the original holding into 10 holdings, and one of the objections was that the procedure of splitting up of one holding into 10 holdings, without notice, lor the purpose of re-valuation, is bad in law and renders the assessment inoperative against the holding concerned. The valuation and assessment were reviewed by the Assessment Review Committee but this objection appears to have been totally ignored.;