- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Municipal assessment Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated December 9, 2002 partly allowing her three appeals preferred against the order of the hearing officer dated July 25, 1996 made in the assessment proceedings. The tribunal declined to accept the case of the petitioner that the same valuation that had been made by the tribunal with respect to another flat located in the same building was to apply for determining valuation of her flat as well. The tribunal rather held that valuation of the other flat in question had been made by it without due application of mind, and hence valuation determined by it subsequently with respect to flats located in the adjacent premises should be the basis for determining valuation of her flat. The question is whether the premise was right.
(2.) THE assessment proceedings were initiated by the corporation by issuing notices mentioning the proposed valuations with effect from third quarter of 1984-85, fourth quarter of 1984-85, and fourth quarter of 1990-91. The notice indicating the proposed valuations for the quarters of 1984-85 was issued on June, 17, 1996. The petitioner submitted her objection contending that the proposed valuations were, unreasonably high. The hearing officer undertook the adjudication process and upheld the proposed valuations. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred three appeals before the tribunal under section 189 (5) of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (subsequently renamed as Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980); and by the impugned order the tribunal disposed of, all the three appeals partly allowing them. The valuations proposed by the corporation and upheld by the hearing officer were reduced to some extent.
(3.) THOUGH directions were given for filing affidavits, the corporation and its authorities have chosen not to file any affidavit. Thus whatever the petitioner has said in the writ petition is to be treated as admitted by the respondents therein. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that facts regarding determination of valuation of another flat located in the same building for the same quarters stated in the writ petition are correct. On this fact, the question has arisen whether the tribunal was justified in holding that valuations determined for another flat located in the same building having been done without sufficient application of mind, in view of an order of the Mayor dated February, 8, 1986 permitting undervalued premise to be valued properly, the petitioner would not be entitled to get benefit of that valuation.;