CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. GAYATRI CHATERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the subject matter of dispute is the assessment of premises No. 9 Lovelock Place. At the previous general valuation which came into operation from the second quarter of 1946-47 (July, 1946) the annual value was determined to be Rs. 2085/- and the disputed valuation which is to be effective from the third quarter of 1950-51 (October, 1950), the annual value has been found to be Rs. 3240/ -. There is no dispute that the annual value is to be determined under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. As the disputed valuation has been made before the expiry of the period of six years specified in section 131 (1) of the Act of 1923 it can be justified only under section 26 of West Bengal Act XXVIII of 1950 by which a new sub-sec. viz. , sub-sec. 1 (a) was introduced into the parent Act empowering the Provincial or State Government at any time between the commencement and expiry of the Calcutta Corporation (Temporary Super session) Act of 1948 (West Bengal Act. VIII of 1948) to direct that the annual value of lands and buildings of any ward be revised by the Executive officer. By Notification No. LSG lc/84/ 48 dated 22nd November, 1948, the Governor directed the Administrative officer of the Corporation of Calcutta, appointed under West Bengal Act VIII of 1948, to revise the annual value of lands and buildings of all wards of Calcutta. By Sec. 26 (b) of West Bengal Act XXVIII of 1950, this direction upon the Administrative officer had the effect of a direction upon the Executive officer. In F. M. A. 276 of 1954. I considered the effect of Section 26 of West Bengal Act XXVIII of 1950 and Notification No. L. S. G. 1c/84/48 dated 22nd November, 1948 in some detail and came to the conclusion that a revision of annual, value made by the Executive officer or an officer to whom the Executive officer had delegated his powers under Sec. 12 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, would be valid. In that case the Executive officer delegated his powers by an order dated June 22, 1949 after he had been directed to revise the annual value by the Notification dated November 22, 1948.

(2.) IN the instant case, however, the revision of annual value has been made by the assessor, in exercise of powers delegated to him on 8. 4. 1924 by Haridhan Dutt who was the Executive officer on that date, and the point for determination is whether the powers delegated to the assessor on April 8, 1924 would include powers conferred on the Executive officer under Section 26 of West Bengal Act XXVIII of 1950, to revise the annual value during the currency of the earlier assessment. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has answered this question in the negative and has held that the revision of annual value made by the assessor in the circumstances stated above, is without jurisdiction. The Corporation of Calcutta has brought this appeal against that decision.

(3.) BEFORE the Court of Small Causes the order of delegation by the then Executive officer was not produced and the argument proceeded on admissions made by the lawyer appearing for the Corporation. In the course of argument in this Court we wanted to see the actual terms of the order of delegation and directed the Corporation to produce it. In pursuance of our' direction the Corporation produced the Original Order of delegation which has been returned after keeping a certified copy on the record. We have admitted that certified copy into evidence under O. 41, R. 27 without any objection as we felt the necessity of examining the actual words by which the delegation was made. That Certified Copy is H. C. Ex. A. The relevant portion of the order of delegation is as follows:-"delegation of Powers" "assessment Department" the following powers functions and duties are delegated by me, as the executive officer of the Corporation of Calcutta, under section 12 (3) of Bengal Act III of 1923, to the officers noted below, as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_7_TLCAL0_1957Html1.htm</FRM> .