Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Orissa Stevedores Limited vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 22 March, 2012
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
(19) 22.03.2012 W. P. No. 7806 (W) of 2011
ah
Orissa Stevedores Limited ... Petitioner.
-Vs-
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
... Respondents.
Mr. K. K. Lahiri, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Mr. Debaditya Chatterjee ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kr.. Banerjee, Mr. Sandip De ... for the Kolkata Municipal Corpn. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Government Pleader & senior advocate and Mr. De, learned advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that as directed by order dated 12th March, 2012, inspection of the original records could not be given on 21st March, 2012 as the files could not be traced. However, today files have been traced. It is submitted that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner may inspect the files. Accordingly, files have been inspected by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that since, while arriving at the annual valuation with effect from 3rd quarter 2000-2001 and 4th quarter 2004-2005, the Corporation did not adhere to the procedure laid down in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, appropriate order may be passed for annulling the said valuation and for re-determining the same. On a query it has been submitted that though the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 15th September, 2007, on the annual valuation arrived 2 at, it should be taken to have been made under protest. On a further query the learned advocate for the petitioner does not dispute that the amount was deposited on behalf of the petitioner, so that he could obtain the mutation and amalgamation. However, he disputes the signature of the petitioner appearing in the original acceptance bonds.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits, on instruction, that the acceptance bonds were signed by the petitioners. Moreover, as it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited the amount after having knowledge of the annual valuation fixed, as four years have passed, the challenge is belated.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties. It is an admitted position that after the determination of annual valuation of the premises for the 3rd quarter 2000-2001 and the 4th quarter 2004-2005, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 15th September, 2007 for the purpose of having the premises mutated in its name. It is also evident from the records that the writ petition was affirmed on 2nd May, 2011 challenging the fixation of annual valuation on the ground that the procedure under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was not followed. Since it has been submitted on 3 behalf of the petitioner that the money was deposited in order to have the property mutated and amalgamated, in my view, the petitioner had accepted the valuation. Assuming that the petitioner has not accepted the valuation, as he was aware of the determination of the annual valuation, since on that basis a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was deposited, as more than four years have lapsed, in my view, the assessment has become final under Section 190 of the Act and at this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge the same. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Let the records be returned to Mr. De, learned advocate for the Corporation.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on priority basis.
( SOUMITRA PAL, J. )