Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) Since in both these Writ Petitions there being common question of facts and law, therefore, they were heard together and have been disposed of hereunder.
(2.) The petitioners in W.P. No. 2043 of 1996 are the Trustees of Estate Babulal Agarwala Trust. The Trust is the owner of the premises No. 133, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). The premises has been comprised of land with four-storied building fully occupied by the tenants. The annual valuation of the property was fixed at Rs.45,269/- before the 1st quarter of 1985-86. By a purported notice dated 15th December, 1988 under section 184(3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Calcutta Municipal Authorities informed the petitioner that annual valuation of the said building was assessed at Rs.3,09,960/- with effect from 1st quarter of 1985-86. Petitioners have stated to have filed an objection against such valuation by a letter dated 27th December, 1988. The Municipal Authorities again sent another notice on 1st December, 1993 by enhancing annual valuation with effect from 2nd quarter 1991-1992 at Rs.3,71,950/-. The petitioners who are the trustees of the Estate Babulal Agarwala, have raised objection on 15th December, 1993. The C.M.C. Authorities informed the petitioners by a notice dated 31st May, 1996 that the annual valuation of the property had been determined at Rs.3,71,950/- with effect from 1st quarter 1991-92 and thereby invited objection from the petitioners against such determination.
(3.) It has appeared that on 13th June, 1996, then the petitioners' representative Sri Kanai Lal Roy went to the office of the Hearing Officer- VII, he found to his utter dismay that the said case was not fixed for hearing on that day, subsequently, the petitioners received a letter vide Memo No. 11722 dated 12th June, 1996, whereby the petitioners were informed that the annual valuation of the property was determined by Hearing Officer on 12th June, 1996 at Rs.3,71,950/- from 1st quarter 1985-86. They were informed that the valuation was fixed at Rs.3,71,950/- on 12th June, 1996 with effect from 2nd quarter 1991-92. Petitioners have therefore, challenged the annual valuation, determined as arbitrary, unlawful and illegal inasmuch as while the date was fixed for hearing on 13-6-1996, how could the Hearing Officer fix the annul valuation on 12th June, 1996. The annual valuation before 1st quarter 1985-86 was determined at Rs. 45,269/- then, how such valuation could be astronomically raised at such disproportionate rate. Although the written objection was filed before the Hearing Officer by the Trustees, such written objection were not at all taken into consideration. The annual valuation was fixed without any application of mind and/or in a closed mind the Assessing Officer.;