CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. HARIPADA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Corporation of Calcutta against an order of Sri S.C. Mukherjee, Judge. Small Causes Court, Sealdah. By his order the learned Judge allowed an appeal preferred by the assessee under section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.

(2.) The matter arises in this way. The premises in question, which was subject matter of an assessment by the Corporation is No. 8A, Chetla Road. The said premises was originally assessed at Rs. 540 in the general revaluation of 1944-45 and thereafter the said valuation was raised to Rs. 11.880, with effect from 3rd quarter 1948-49, the increase having been made under section 138 of the said Act on the ground of erection of new structures. Originally the premises consisted of bare land and it was let out to Meerza Ali Akbar. Meerza Ali Akbar after the said premises had been let out to him erected a structure thereof and the revaluation which the Corporation has made within a period of 6 years from 1944-45 was on the ground that during the currency of tin said period a new building has been erected.

(3.) In other words the Corporation proceeded to act under section 131 (2) (d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Against the decision of the Corporation the owner preferred an appeal to the Court of Small Clauses under section 141 of the Municipal Act. The then Judge of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, Mr. H. K. Ganguly came to the conclusion that the assessment was illegal and allowed the appeal. Against that order there was an appeal by the Corporation to this Court. This Court remained the case back to the Small Cause Court. Sealdah, with a direction amongst others to decide when were the existing structures now standing on the premises in question raised and by whom ? It is not difficult to see the reason for which the learned Judges of this Court made that direction in remanding the case back to the Small Causes Court, Sealdah. It was upon the decision of the question as to by whom and when the existing structures were erected would depend whether section 127 (a) or 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act would apply to the present case. The matter, when it came back before the Small Causes Court, was heard and decided by the then Judge Sri S.C. Mukherjee. He came to the conclusion on the question indicated above, that the structure was erected by the tenant Meerza Ali Akbar after the last general valuation. In other words, it was the structure of the lessee for his own occupation and after premises were let out to him. The learned Judge however came to the conclusion that the revaluation made by the Corporation was legal and he allowed the appeal. The substance of the learned Judge's reasoning was that the respondent (Corporation could only value, at the intermediate revaluation, the structure of the godown apart from the lands and not the lands and the structures combined. I would have mentioned what the Corporation did was to revalue the premises under section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act and under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act I shall have to refer to those sections more fully. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that only the building in question ought to be revalued under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act and the valuation of the land as already made should remain and should be added to the valuation of the said building. On this process of reasoning, the learned Judge allowed the appeal.