Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Md. Wasim Akram & Anr vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 12 March, 2015

Author: Aniruddha Bose

Bench: Aniruddha Bose

                                                 1

06   12.03.15.                         W.P. 33099 (W) of 2014
ab
                                     Md. Wasim Akram & Anr.
                                             Vs
                                 The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.


                                Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya
                                Mr. Syed Shafi Ahmed
                                                         ... For the Petitioners.
                                Mr. Ambar Nath Banerji
                                Mr. Gopal Das
                                                  ... For the K.M.C.


                        Though this writ petition has been listed today under the

                 heading "To Be Mentioned", this writ petition is being taken up for

                 hearing at this stage only on consent of the learned Counsel

                 appearing for the parties.

                        The petitioners questions the legality of enhancement of

                 annual valuation pertaining to premises no. 11/1, Collin Lane,

                 Kolkata -700016 from Rs. 15,660/- to Rs. 45,680/- with effect from

                 second quarter of 2006-2007. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel

                 appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the valuation in this

                 case was enhanced without giving any prior notice of hearing to the

                 petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation

                 could not be produce any evidence of service of notice and at the

                 same time submitted that his clients were willing to reexamine the

                 matter upon hearing the petitioners afresh.

                        In this proceeding, the stand of the petitioners is that neither

                 hearing notice nor the order by which the annual valuation of the

                 property was enhanced was served on them. This has been pleaded in

                 paragraph 7 of the writ petition.

                        In such circumstances, I direct the respondent municipal

corporation not to rely upon any order pertaining to enhancement of 2 annual valuation of the subject property with effect from second quarter on 2006-2007. Such orders if passed, shall remain permanently stayed. The petitioners will be given fresh opportunity of hearing pertaining to annual valuation for the same period and upon hearing, decision shall be taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation afresh in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall, however be, no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.

(Aniruddha Bose, J.)