VEENA KEJRIWAL Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VALUATION of the premises of the petitioner had been enhanced from rs. 13,662/- to Rs. 1,65,780/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1989-90 pursuant to an order dated 16. 11. 1998 passed by the Hearing Officer-VIII appointed under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act (hereafter the Act ). Similar order passed by the said Hearing Officer for the period effective from 4th quarter of 1995-96. These orders were subjected to challenge by the petitioner in appeals under section 189 of the Act before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal ). By order dated 2. 12. 2003, the appeals were allowed in part and the annual valuation of the said premises was reduced to Rs. 43,120/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1989-90 and again from 4th quarter of 1995-96.

(2.) WHILE preferring appeals, as aforesaid, the petitioners in terms of Section 189 (6) of the Act had deposited an aggregate sum of Rs. 12,49,922/- being the entire amount of property tax payable on the basis of the impugned orders passed by the Hearing Officer. Since the Tribunal had interfered with the assessment made by the Hearing Officer and had reduced the valuation, the petitioner by a letter dated 6. 2. 2004 called upon the Assessor Collector (North) of the Corporation to refund the excess amount of property tax which had been deposited by her. There being no response, the petitioner sent a reminder on 9. 3. 2004. Since this attempt too proved abortive, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 13. 7. 2004 to the Mayor of the Corporation seeking refund. Such prayer not having yielded result, final reminder was sent on 9. 12. 2004 claiming an amount of Rs. 9,74,508/- as the amount refundable to her together with interest @ 18% p. a. Without refunding the amount claimed by the petitioner together with interest, the Corporation by its letter dated 15. 9. 2004 claimed an amount of Rs. 11,27,977/- based on the order passed by the Hearing Officer. This was despite the fact that the order of the Hearing Officer stood modified by the appellate order dated 2. 12. 2003. It is at this stage that the petitioner approached this court with the present petition in September, 2004 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the actions of the respondents seeking, inter alia, the following relief:

(3.) THE writ petition was admitted and affidavits were directed to be exchanged. However, the respondents did not contest the writ petition by filing counter-affidavit. The writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 2. 8. 2007 when an order was passed directing the Corporation to refund the sum of Rs. 9,74,508/- positively within a month from date of communication of the order. However, such refund was directed to abide by the result of a review application, stated to have filed by the Corporation before the Tribunal and which was pending on that date. It was also recorded in the said order that claim of the petitioner for interest @ 18 % per annum would be considered on 21. 8. 2007.