Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vvf (India) Limited vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 17 May, 2023
Item No.18
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
17.05.2023
Ct-24
WPA 11820 of 2021
VVF (India) Limited
v.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder
Mr. Deepak Basu
Mr. Sayan Sinha
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Srijan Nayak
Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta
... for KMC.
The matter relates to the premises no. 7, Tiljala
Road, Kolkata-700039.
The Corporation of Calcutta, Tollygunge Tax
Department issued a special notice under Section 180 of
the West Bengal Act XXXIII of 1951 on January 11, 1978
to the owner of the premises no. 7, Tiljala Road
intimating that the premises has been assessed at an
annual valuation of Rs. 57,199/- and the said valuation
is to remain in force for six years from the
commencement of the 3rd quarter of 1876-77.
The Corporation of Calcutta issued the
consolidated rate tax bill in favour of the owner of the
said premises being Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. for the
period April to June 1980 and similar bills were raised
for the period 1982-1993.
The petitioner claims that the aforesaid Calcutta
Chemical Co. Ltd. changed its name to Henkel India Ltd.
2
The petitioner herein purchased the property
along with its assets, liabilities and workers from Henkel
India Ltd. in December 2009. The Kolkata Municipal
Corporation continued issuing property tax receipts in
favour of the erstwhile owner Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd.
till the year 2014-15 by mentioning that the owner of the
property is Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd.
After purchase of the property the petitioner
applied for mutation of the same in its name.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation in May 2016
issued property tax bill wherein it was mentioned that
the owner of the property was the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and the occupier, the Calcutta Chemical Co.
Ltd.
The amount of property tax required to be paid
when the bills were issued in the name of the erstwhile
owner, Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. remains the same
when the bill is raised by mentioning the name of
Kolkata Municipal Corporation as owner and the
Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. as the occupier.
The petitioner sought for information under the
Right to Information Act as to how the name of the
owner could be changed in the property tax receipts.
Prayer was also made for supplying the copies of
documents in support of the alleged claim of ownership
and to share the terms and conditions in favour of the
occupancy of Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. There has been
no response from the end of the Corporation. A legal
representation was also filed before the Corporation but
the same remained unanswered.
3
In the affidavit-in-opposition that has been filed on
behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation it has been
mentioned that the property in question is recorded in
the list of inventory of immovable properties prepared
under Section 540(2) of the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation Act, 1980. The same is appearing in the list
of immovable properties since the year 2007-08 till date.
The inventory of immovable properties for the period
2007-2008 and 2023 and 2024 has been produced in
Court.
It appears that the assessee number in respect of
the subject premises remains the same even when the
name of Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. was recorded as the
owner and thereafter when the property stood recorded
in favour of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation by
showing that Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. is the occupier.
Apart from the fact that the property in question is
included in the list of inventory of immovable properties
the Corporation is not able to produce any other
document in support of ownership of the property.
The learned advocate for the Corporation has also
not been able to satisfy the Court as to how a property of
which the Corporation is the owner could have been
taxed for the purpose of payment of property tax from a
private individual. Documents prior to 2014-15 reveal
that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner is recorded as the owner of the subject
property.
All on a sudden the ownership changes without
the knowledge of the recorded owner and the erstwhile
recorded owner is described as an occupier of the
subject premises.
4
It is true that mutation is not meant to decide the
title of an individual. Mutation is merely for the purpose
of identifying the person primarily liable to pay tax.
In the present case, the ownership of the property
stood changed by way of issuing the property tax bill
without relying upon relevant documents. The aforesaid
act of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in changing the
municipal records without granting an opportunity of
hearing to the recorded owner is not permissible in law.
Prior to effecting the change in the municipal
records, the Corporation ought to have afforded an
opportunity of hearing to the recorded owner.
In view of the above, the Commissioner, Kolkata
Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the case of
the petitioner in accordance with law after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the necessary
parties and to pass a reasoned order after taking into
consideration all the documents and facts placed before
the authority.
The aforesaid respondent shall take specific note
of the fact that till 2014 the property in question stood recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and property tax receipts were issued in the name of the predecessor-in-interest.
The property could not have been recorded in the list of inventories of immovable properties of the Corporation and at the same time tax receipts issued in the name of the predecessor-in-interest.
5A decision shall be taken in the matter at the earliest but positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The recording in the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regarding ownership of the Corporation in respect of the subject premises shall not be given effect to and be kept in abeyance till a fresh decision is taken by the Municipal Commissioner in this regard.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.
Sh (Amrita Sinha, J.)