Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Piyali Maitra Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 November, 2019
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
14 1.11.
BR 2019 W.P. 7936 (W) of 2019
Piyali Maitra Dutta
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
Mr. Indranath Mitra,
Mr. Subhankar Das,
Mr. Neil Basu .... For the Petitioner
Ms. Sima Adhikari ... for the State
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Sankar Halder,.. for the respondent no. 3 and 4
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for direction upon the Administrator of the Krishnanagar Municipality , respondent no. 4 and the Executive Officer of the said municipality, respondent no. 6 to dispose of the petitioner's application for mutation of the property situated at holding no. 13, Ward No. 7.
Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was gifted this property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 23rd February, 2015. Since then petitioner was not allowed to make any application before the concerned municipality for transfer of the said property in the name of the petitioner after depositing statutory mutation fees for mutation of the said property. Therefore without finding any alternative petitioner approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing the present writ petition. In the present writ petition on last occasion the learned advocate for the municipality was directed to take instruction why till date no step has been taken by the municipality to mutate the said property in favour of the petitioner. Today with instruction, Mr. Halder submits that by virtue of the 2 resolution adopted by the Board of Councillors of the Krishnanagar Municipality on 11th December, 2018 the petitioner is liable to pay the development fees at the rate of 1% of the deed value. Since no development fees has been deposited by the petitioner at the rate of 1% of the deed value along with the mutation fees, therefore, no steps has been taken by the Krishnanagar Municipality to mutate the said property in favour of the petitioner.
Mr. Saha Roy submits that the petitioner is only liable to pay the statutory fees for mutation which the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit. Unfortunately, municipality refused to accept that mutation fees unless the petitioner deposited the development fees at the rate of 1% of the deed value along with the mutation fees. Therefore, without finding any alternative petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition. It is further submitted by Mr. Saha Roy, under Section 116 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 the petitioner is liable to pay the statutory mutation fees as fixed by the Government for transfer of the name from the earlier owner to the petitioner. Unfortunately by the impugned resolution the municipality is claiming 1% of the deed value towards the development fees under Section 93 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. Mr. Saha Roy further contends that Section 93 Sub Section (1) never prescribes for taking 1 % of the deed value towards the development fees at the time of mutation. In support of his contention Mr. Saha Roy relies on Section 116 as well as Section 93 which are quoted below:
3
" 116. Notice of transfer.- (1) whenever the title of any person to any land or building is transferred, such person, if primarily liable for the payment of property tax on such land or building, and the person to whom the title is so transferred, shall, within three months give notice of such transfer in writing to the Chairman.
(2) On the death of any person primarily liable for the payment of property tax as aforesaid , the person on whom the title of the land or the building referred to in sub-section (1) devolves shall, within six months from the date of death of the former, give notice, in writing, of such devolution to the Chairman.
(3) The notice under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed , and the transferee or the person on whom the title devolves shall, if so required , be bound to produce before the Chairman any document evidencing the transfer or devolution.
(4) If any person , who transfers his
title to any land or building , fails to
give any notice under this Section to the Chairman, he shall, in addition to any penalty to which he may be subject under this Act, continue to be liable for payment of property tax on 4 such land or building until he gives such notice , but nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the transferee for payment of the property tax on such land or building. (5) The Chairman shall, on receipt of a notice of transfer or devolution cause such transfer to be recorded in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed."
"93. Power to impose taxes .- (1) The Board of Councillors shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to levy the following taxes:-
(a) a property tax on lands and buildings,
(b) a tax on advertisements, other than advertisements published in the newspapers,
(c) a tax on cart,
(d) a tax on carriage,
(e) toll on -
(i) ferry,
(ii) bridge , and
(iii) [heavy truck which shall be a heavy
goods vehicle, within the meaning of
clause (16) of section 2 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), plying on a public street.] ( 2) The levy , assessment and collection of taxes mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be in accordance 5 with the provisions of this Act and the rules and the bye-
laws made thereunder."
Mr. Saha Roy also emphasises that Section 93 never suggested that at the time of mutation the applicant has to pay 1 % of the deed value towards the development fees. It is also submitted that this development fees has been adopted by the Board of Councillors in their resolution dated 11th December , 2018. Unfortunately, nowhere in the statute it is prescribed. It is also vehemently submitted that at the time of mutation /transfer of the property the applicant is liable to submit statutory fees for mutation , not any development fees. This resolution has no legal force and has no legal sanctity at the same time.
Considering the submissions as advanced by the learned advocate for the parties and after perusing the records as well as considering the Sections 116 and 93 (supra), I find there is no whisper in those sections that beyond the statutory mutation fees the applicant has to pay 1% of the deed value to the municipality towards the development fees. This development fees theory has been adopted by the Board of Councillors in their resolution dated 11th December, 2018 which is contrary to the law and no legal sanctity.
That being the scenario, I direct the petitioner to make application for mutation of the said property before the Administrator, of the Krishnanagar Municipality , respondent no. 4 and the Executive Officer of the said municipality, respondent no. 6 herein thereby submitting only the statutory fees for mutation as well as 6 the cost of mutation within two weeks from date. If such application is submitted along with the statutory fees as well as cost of mutation as indicated above then the respondent no. 4 as well as respondent no. 6 after receiving such application along with the statutory mutation fees shall take steps to mutate the said property in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter without insisting upon the petitioner to deposit 1 % of the deed value towards the development fees .
With this direction the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order . if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties on usual undertakings.
The resolution dated 11th December, 2018 as handed up by Mr. Halder be kept on record.
( Samapti Chatterjee, J. )