KALIPADA DAWN Vs. COMMISSIONERS OF THE VISHNUPUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art. 226 is directed against an order of the Review Committee of the Vishnupur Municipality, of the 21st May, 1959, by which they have assessed the valuation for the petitioners' holding no. 288 (new) at Rs. 12,800/- by an order dated 21. 5. 59, modifying the valuation originally made by the Assessor. The Petitioners' case is that the holding belongs to the deity Sri Iswar Laxmimata Thakurani and a cinema house has been constructed by the funds of that deity and that the holding, together with the cinema house, has been leased out to the Petitioners, Kalipada Dawn and others at an annual rent of Rs. 240/-, by a registered deed. The previous assessment for the holding was made in 1953 and the annual value of the holding at that time was assessed at Rs. 3,780/- only. Under sec. 137, a revision of the valuation for the next period commencing from 1959 was made by an Assessor who raised the annual valuation from Rs. 3,780/- to Rs. 15,360/ -. Aggrieved by this enhancement in the valuation the Petitioners applied for a review under section 148 and the Review Committee, appointed by the Municipality, to hear, the Petitioners' application for review, reduced the valuation from Rs. 15,360/- to Rs. 12,800/ -.

(2.) THE petitioners are not satisfied with this reduction and, according to them, the enhancement from Rs. 3,780/-to Rs. 12,800/ - has been made arbitrarily without any valid material to support this high assessment. The revised valuation, according to the Petitioners, is in contravention of sub-sec. (2) of section 128 of the Bengal Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), and the provisions of rules 8, 10 and 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. In the affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondents, the Petitioners' allegation that they are lessees of the alleged deity is denied and it is contended that the valuation has been duly made under sub-section (1) of section 128 on the basis of the gross annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let and not on the basis of the annual value of the holding, as referred to in subsection (2) and it is contended that there was nothing arbitrary in the assessment made on the basis of the annual expected rental of the cinema house and other structures, which stand on the holding.

(3.) I must, at the very outset, observe that sub-sec. (2) of sec. 128 of the Act has no relevance in the facts of this case, because that sub-section is attracted where the "gross annual rental", as referred to in sub-section (1) of that section "cannot, in the opinion of the assessor, be easily estimated or ascertained". In the present case, it is the ease of the Petitioners that the holding has been let out to them at a rental and the rent which may be reasonably expected in respect of a holding used as a cinema premises can also be ascertained. The Respondents also do not seek to support the impugned valuation under sub-sec, (2), but rely on sub-see. (1) of the section. We may, therefore, part with sub-section (2) at this initial stage.