Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ application is filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to cancel or rescind the impugned notices of demand and to direct them not to give offer to the said demand and to take steps from making attachment and sale of the petitioner's properties as per Annexure 'A' and to restrain them from giving any decision or further effect to the purported notice of demand aid from taking any step or further step or further proceeding in respect of the alleging composite demands with warrant notice for steps as contained in the notice (annexure 'A' to the writ petition) any manner whatsoever. It is stated that the petitioner own 2 houses (old) at No. 35 & 45 Prahalad Plot Street described as "Dharam Niwas" being house No. 5/80 and as "Vora Niwas" being house No. 5/700 both in the town of Rajkot, Gujrat. The respondent No 1 is Municipal Corporation of Rajkot and the respondent Nos. 2.and 3 are Commissioner and Tax Superintendent of the said Municipality respectively. The tenants/respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have been litigating with the petitioner in different Courts and they have stopped payment of rent to the petitioner long since. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are alleged to have wrongfully and illegally assessed the annual valuation of the holdings without verification and or intimation to the petitioner and the valuation of the said premises has been made fabulously without considering the relevant data had following any basis whatsoever. It is further alleged that there are recognized and generally accepted mode and manner of assessment of the value of immovable properties within the municipal areas for the purpose of levying taxes and rates within the municipal areas for the purpose of levying taxes as provided in the Statute governing the Municipal Body. There is no room for discretion and/or guess work by arbitrary exercise of power by the Municipal Authorities. Prior to the receipt of the notice (Annexure 'A') the petitioner had no intimation nor he received any communication from the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 or from any one else with regard to enquiry or inspection or investigation about a standard or a fair valuation of the said two houses belonging to the petitioner. It is a1so alleged that from the purported notice it appears that there has been arbitrary assessment of valuation without any reference to any acceptable data or basis for valuation of property for the purpose of assessment. There is no disclosure or indication as to the mode of valuation or whether any proper or inspection investigation has been held by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with the law. The petitioner further alleged that the entire assessment proceeding has been held ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner and he had been deprived of filing any objection and the right of hearing before the assessment of valuation of holdings.
(2.) On the basis of the purported and pretended assessments made ex parte, steps are being taken to realize times arbitrarily while there are old tenants paying meager rents and there is enmity between the petitioner and the tenant. The assessed valuation of holdings figuring Rs. 7,680 and Rs. 5,280 without any notice to the petitioner is unwarranted and uncalled for. The respondent No. 3 is alleged to have issued two notices of alleged demands purported to be dated 7-12-80 and 20-12-80 and served on the petitioner at No. 2, Portuguese Church Street, Calcutta on 28th December, 1980 and 10th of January 1981 in respect of "Dharam Niwas" and "Vora Niwas". The amounts mentioned in the demand notices are all illegal and irregular. There is no basis of illegal assessment and such demands have been made arbitrarily and consequently the notices are absolutely invalid in the eye of the law. The petitioner has strongly challenged the purported assessment and consequent demand. Although the petitioner made representation by placing on records his objection there is no reply to the petitioner and instead the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 issued and served a warrant notice purported to be dated 19-12-80 stated to have been published in Gujarati newspaper named "Nutan Saurashtra" and on the petitioner at No. 2, Portuguese Church Street, Calcutta. Since the said newspaper has its circulation in Calcutta and there is a service of the notice at Calcutta the petitioner files the present writ by making various allegations and seeking reliefs on the grounds that the impugned acts and deeds of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are violative of the principles of natural justice and the Rules and the provisions of the Act governing the respondent No.1 Municipality for the purpose of assessment of the mode of recovery of taxes. The illegal demands of combined notices purported to be dated 7-12-80 and 20-12-80 seriously challenged and the petitioner contends that they are bad in law and they should be quashed.
(3.) The writ petition is contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by filing affidavit-in-opposition sworn by one Chauhan Rashmikant Devjibhai. The allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted and it has been placed on record that the steps have been taken to access the valuation of the premises in question and to realise taxes strictly in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules for the purpose of assessment to property taxes. The rules for the purpose of assessment of property taxes are provided in Chapter VIII of Schedule "A" appended to the Act according to the provisions of the Rules referred to above, the assessment of the lands and buildings situated within the local limit of city of Rajkot are made under Rule 13. The Commissioner made public notice of the place where the assessment book could be inspected and such public notices were given by advertisemnet in the local newspaper as provided in Rule 13. Under Rule 14 every person who reasonably claims to be the owner of occupier of some premises may enter in the assessment book as owner or the agent or any such occupier shall be permitted free of chare to inspect and take extracts of any entry of any portion of the said book which relates to the said premises . Under Rule 15 complaints against the valuation publicly announced can be filed within 15 days . The Rule 21 provides for adoption of the assessment in every official year. Under the said provisions of the Act and the Rules the assessment of the property owned by the petitioner was made and all the formalities contemplated in the Rules were duly complied with and the allegations of the petitioner are unwarranted and uncalled for. There is also denial of the allegations of the petitioner. The petitioner has however, filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder reiterating his contentions in the main writ application and denying the contentions of the contesting respondents. An Affidavit-in-Rejoinder his been filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the main writ petition;