Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Smt. Archana Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 5 January, 2018

Author: Sahidullah Munshi

Bench: Sahidullah Munshi

                                      1

10   05.01.201               W.P. 26179 (W) of 2017
BD
         8.
                             Smt. Archana Gupta
                                      Vs
                      The State of West Bengal & Others


                     Mr. Achyut Basu,
                     Ms. Sonam Basu,
                     Ms. Poonam Basu.
                                  ... For Petitioner
                     Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar.
                                  ... For State
                     Mr. Tapan Kr. Rakshit.
                                  ... For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3

Mr. Kaushik Pradhan.

This writ petition is directed against the proposed valuation of a property under Kalyani Municipality in the name of the assessee Pradip De under (Assessee No. 2002011478) situated at Ward No. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said premises was valued at Rs. 601/- for the year 2016- 2017 but all on a sudden the valuation has jumped to Rs. 10,580/-. The petitioner claims that she has made a representation to the Chairman of the Municipality on July 19, 2017 immediately after the proposed valuation was made in respect of the Premises No. B-3/106 assessed in the name of Pradip De. In the representation the petitioner has sought to canvass that the property in respect of which valuation has been made and the valuation she is aggrieved thereby belonged to erstwhile lessee, Pradip De who subsequently transferred the property to the 2 petitioner by executing Deed of Transfer dated February 16, 2005 and which was admitted to registration in the year 2009.

The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that according to Rule 5 of the West Bengal Valuation Board (Valuation of Land & Building) Rules, 1984, she is entitled to a specific notice. He further submits that public notification before such revision of valuation is required to be made by the concerned authorities. According to him the Municipality has not taken recourse either of the said two processes and the valuation in respect of his property should be set aside.

Learned advocate for the Municipality submits that public notification has already been issued and he has produced before this Court the relevant notification published in 'Sambad Pratidin' on November 4, 2016. So far as the specific notice is concerned as pointed out by the petitioner, this Court cannot agree with him because till now the petitioner has not been able to show before this Court that she is the assessee in respect of the premises.

The short and simple question the petitioner has failed to answer that a writ petition cannot be entertained at the behest of a person who primarily fails to satisfy the Court that she can be considered to be a person aggrieved by the action of the Municipality which the Assessee is one Pradip De. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner has no locus standi to move this writ petition. However, this 3 order shall not stand in the way of challenging the proposed valuation after the petitioner is able to get his name mutated in her name.

The writ petition is dismissed.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

(Sahidullah Munshi, J.)