MAMATA GHOSH Vs. HEARING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned revision in annual value of the impugned land and also the order dated 24.7.89, 7.7.93, also the order dated 20.7.93, the order dated 29.8.1996 and the impugned notice dated 10.4.1996.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner who claims to be the sole owner of the premises No. 12E, Ballygunge Station Road, Calcutta that the general revaluation of the premises with effect from 2nd quarter, 1989-90 by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 as also the revision in the general revaluation of the said premises under Sec. 180 (2) (ii) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with effect from 2nd quarter of 1995-96 by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are bad. The petitioner herself on 22.9.89 received a special notice dated 24.7.1989 intimating the annual value of the said premises on the ground of revaluation.

(3.) It is alleged that without making any assessment as prayed an ex parte order was passed fixing the revaluation of the premises at Rs. 54,000.00. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 20.7.1993. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the manner in which the revaluation has been made viz. relying on the rental received by the petitioner for parking car in the shed in question is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.