MANAMATHA NATH GHOSH Vs. RAMKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A further interim order requires to be passed in this matter. I am prima facie satisfied that the order impugned in this proceeding seeks to resurrect an order of the Municipal Commissioner which is dead and laid to rest not on one but on two occasions. Mr. Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the Municipal Commissioner, points out the second last paragraph of page 109 of the impugned order and submits that there are reason enough to sustain the order independently and this was the only course which was open to the Municipal Corporation in respect of vacant land leased out by the Corporation to private parties and if this course had not been adopted then even a higher valuation would have resulted. Briefly he submits that the lease deed shows what the premium for the transaction was and the Corporation based its market value and annual valuation on a conjoint reading of Section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 read with Section 2(16B) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by West Bengal Act No.17 of 1990.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew my attention to the language of the Municipal Commissioner in the paragraph under reference:

(3.) He submits that the foregoing paragraphs of the order clearly show that the Municipal Commissioner was determined to give a fresh lease of life to the original order of the Municipal Commissioner which had been quashed by a Co- ordinate Bench and on hearing, an order of a like nature which was passed subsequently and this is clear he says on a plain reading of the fact that the Municipal Commissioner had held that he rightly determined and fixed the annual valuation of the orders which were set aside.