SHEILA DE Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAWS(CAL)-2019-6-73
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 20,2019

Sheila De Appellant
VERSUS
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief - "Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or orders and/or direction or directions in right nature commanding the respondents to forthwith cancel, rescind and revoke the purported annual valuation of Rs.9,02,780/- with effect from 1st Quarter, 2017-2018 as purportedly fixed under the Unit Area Assessment System;" Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the joint owner of the property detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. When she took steps towards mutation of her name on the records, she was given to understand that no application for mutation would be entertained by the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, KMC) unless she subscribes to the Unit Area Assessment (in short, UAA) system. Accordingly, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to subscribe to the UAA system and to fill up a self- assessment form and to submit the same along with her application for mutation. The same was considered and the petitioner's name was mutated on 12th July, 2017 and on the basis of the self-assessment form submitted by the petitioner, the Annual Valuation (in short, AV) was determined to be Rs.9,02,780/-.
(3.) According to Mr. Banerjee, prior to determination of AV the petitioner was neither given any opportunity of hearing nor the calculation on the basis of which the AV had been determined, was supplied to her and she was kept in the dark about the procedure adopted by the authorities of KMC towards determination of AV. Prior to enhancement of AV from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.9,02,780/-, there was an obligation on the part of KMC authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of such contention, Mr. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the provisions contained in Sections 182A, 186 and 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short, KMC Act).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.