SAMBHUDAS PYNE Vs. CORPN OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision made by the Court of small Causes, Sealdah under section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (referred to herein as the Act ).

(2.) THE appeal arises out of an annual valuation made in respect of bustee at premises No. 105/3, Ultadanga main Road for assessment of consolidated rates with effect from 3rd Qr. 1951-52. This annual valuation was made departmentally at the outset at rs. 20,240/ - on valuing the huts at rs. 9,179/- and the lands at Rs. 11,061/-separately. Upon objection by the owner, the present appellant, the Deputy Commissioner II of the respondent Corporation of Calcutta by his order dated March 2, 1954 fixed the annual valuation at Rs. 15,304/- on reduction of the value both of huts and lands to Rs. 6,007 /- and Rs. 9,267/ - respectively. As against this reduced valuation an appeal was taken by the owner, the present appellant, to the Court of small Causes which on a further reduction by its order dated 2nd April, 1955 fixed the valuation at Rs. 7,544/- on the the basis of the previous annual valuation of Rs. 7,420/ - relating to the same premises fixed by the same court in appeal No. M. A. 101 of 1952 against the annual valuation of Rs. 11,222/ -. On a further appeal by the respondent Corporation of Calcutta to this Court the decision of the Small Causes Court fixing the valuation to Rs. 7,544/ - was set aside and the case was sent back on remand for rehearing on the view that even in case of annual re-valuation the entire bustee with huts upon it had to be re-valued and not merely by adding the value of the additional huts erected with the existing valuation. Liberty was given also to the present appellant to agitate the question as to whether valuation was made without jurisdiction or without authority under the Act.

(3.) ON the questions as to assessment being ultra vires or without jurisdiction the Small Causes Court took the view that there was valid delegation of the power of the executive officer in favour of the assessor who properly exercised his discretion in making the annual valuation with a further finding that the notice under section 138 of the Act was valid. On merits it held that the annual valuation as made by the respondent corporation must stand in absence of any evidence given by the present appellant showing the valuation as prima facie wrong or excessive.