Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) These ten (10) writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law. Therefore, I have heard them together with notices to the learned Advocates for the parties. The same set of learned Advocates had appeared for all the ten (10) writ petitioners and the respondents. Affidavits-in-opposition and reply have been exchanged by the parties and filed in Court. Perhaps, because of the above reasons there has been some confusion in assigning the reason of revaluation in some matters by alleging facts which were not applicable to those cases but thankfully these have occurred only in the Affidavits-in-opposition and not the orders impugned. Accordingly, it does not prevent me from taking up the matters on the basis of the records disclosed by the writ petitioners.
(2.) The ten (10) writ petitions pertain to ten (10) separate flats having been the same premises number and which one formed part of the same mother premises. The transferors of the said flat were initial holders of agreements for sale from the owner/developer of the mother premises. Though the Kolkata Municipal Corporation had issued hearing notices to them and assessed the mother property admittedly they were not responsible to make payment of the consolidated rates/taxes on land and building at that time before any deed of sale was executed in their favour. The annual valuation fixed by the Hearing Officer had been challenged by the transferors/owner developer of the mother premises and the learned building assessment tribunal was pleased to reduce the valuation of the mother premises. These were with effect from the fourth quarter of 1990-91, 3rd quarter of 1992-93 and the third quarter of 1998-99. Subsequently, the writ petitioners obtained deeds of sale from the transferor which were duly registered. This was after a process of civil litigation between the writ petitioners and the transferor/promoter/developer/owner of the mother premises. After the writ petitioners had acquired title in the above manner they applied for mutation and apportionment of the proportionate consolidated rates on land and building. Needless to mention this was in respect of their individual flats.
(3.) The respondent no. 1 corporation mutated the respective flats in the names of the individual petitioners on April 19, 2008 but it issued hearing notices under Section 183(3) and 183(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 proposing an increase of the annual valuation with effect from the first quarter of 1992-93, the third quarter of 1992-93, third quarter of 1998-99 and the third quarter of 2004-2005 to different amounts. The said notices were purported to be of revised valuation of the said flats. The writ petitioners filed similar, if not identical objections in writing, to the proposed valuation in each case. In each of the objections in writing, inter alia, the writ petitioners made the following submissions: - Paragraph 1: "I like to inform you that hearing of the area of my Flat in occupation for the period 1/92-93, 3/92-93 & 3/98-99 is already completed by assessing the officer on 14/10/99 followed by an appeal before the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata vide appeal no. 2510, 2511 and 2512 of 1999. An order is passed by the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata dated 14/2/06 for the period of 4th quarter 1990-91, 3rd quarter 1992-93 and 3rd quarter 1998-99." Paragraph 2: "Our Ld. Advocate submitted a letter of request for adjustment of excess payment made as per Tribunal orders duly received by KMC on 28/3/06." Paragraph 3: "I further like to state that for the period 3rd Qr. 2004-05, please consider the valuation as per the Tribunal Order by adding 10% appreciation to the valuation for the last period of 3rd qr. 1998-99 fixed by the Ld. Tribunal Court order dated 14/02/06." Paragraph 5: "The above mentioned flat is purely used for residential purposes and self-occupied no portion at the flat has been let out on rent to any person." Paragraph 6: "It is well settled by various judgments that reasonable rental value cannot be the basis for determining the annual value of a self occupied flat." At paragraph 7 the writ petitioners submitted that the basement and ground floor of the building were sanctioned for car parking areas of the residents of the building and as a common space its mutation and assessment in the hands of the petitioners were against the sanction plan and already the matter is sub judice before a competent civil court. At paragraph 4 a point was taken that though municipal taxes had been paid by the petitioners from time to time according the demand of the respondent no. 1, the same had not been adjusted in accordance with the learned tribunal's order dated February 14, 2006.;