JAGNARAYAN PRASAD Vs. COMMRS OF RANCHI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of assessment passed by the erstwhile Ranchi Municipality with respect to the holding of the petitioner bearing Municipal Holding No. 607 of Ward No. 5, situate in the town of Ranchi. According to the case of the petitioner, earlier the holding was assessed during the general assessment in the year 1960-61, at the annual valuation of Rs. 700/- only, but later on it was enhanced at the annual valuation of Rs. 10,000/- with effect from the third quarter of the year 1978-79. The petitioner has stated that no earlier information was given of the revised assessment proceeding and he was suddenly intimated of the increased assessment by a communication dated 15-12-78 (Annex.-1). The petitioner filed a review application challenging the order under S.116 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, along with his brother, Gopalji Jaiswal, after taking a power of attorney from him. In para 13 of the writ application, the petitioner has admitted that the Review Committee noticed the petitioner to appear before it and the Committee ultimately reduced the annual valuation of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- by its order dated 3-3-79 (Annex.-4).

(2.) Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised two contentions in challenge of the impugned order contained in Annex.-2 which stood modified by the review order, contained in Annex.-4. He submitted that the assessment order being passed under the provisions of S.107 of the Act, in absence of the statutory notice, as provided under Sub-S. (2) of the said Section, to the petitioner, the order was without jurisdiction. Giving of at least one month notice to the interested person for amending the assessment list under any of the clauses of S.107 of the Act is a non-issue, since it has been well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. Although no counter affidavit has been filed, but I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the assessment order in question has been passed in exercise of the powers under S.107 of the Act. The order does not speak of the application of any of the conditions for the change; rather it has taken notice of the entire structure of the holding which is a four-storeyed Pucca building containing shops and rooms. Stating the details of the entire building, it has been stated that it may be assessed at the annual valuation of Rs. 10,000/-, in place of the old valuation. I do not see any merit in the first contention raised.

(3.) The second point urged was that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Review Committee. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Municipality that S.117(2) of the Act does not contemplate a personal hearing. It reads thus :