Skip to content


Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Peary Mohan Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.452
AppellantCorporation of Calcutta
RespondentPeary Mohan Roy
Cases ReferredCorporation of Calcutta v. Bhupati Roy
Excerpt:
calcutta municipal act (iii b.c. of 1899), section 162 - appeal--question of valuation--jurisdiction of small, cause court--how land is to he assessed, if question within jurisdiction. - .....of the premises distinctly demarcated should be separated from the remainder and assessed as vacant land, and he concluded his order with the following observations: 'from the entire area of the holding, the portion fenced off should be excluded and assessed as vacant land.' this part of the order is clearly without jurisdiction. in appeals preferred under section 162, it is competent to the small cause court judge to deal with the question of valuation and that question alone. corporation of calcutta v. bhupati roy 26 c. 74 : 3 c.w.n. 70. as to the manner in which land is to be assessed, after the valuation has been settled, whether it is or is not to be assessed as vacant land, is a question entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the small cause court judge.2. the result, therefore,.....
Judgment:

1. We are invited in this Rule to modify an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdab, passed in an appeal preferred to him under Section 162 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899. The appeal related to the question of valuation of certain premises in this city. The Corporation had valued the land at Rs. 7,694. This valuation was based on the rate of Rs. 400 for an area of 14 cottahs of solid land and the rate of Rs. 300 for an area of 6 cottahs and 5 chataks treated as tank filled-up land. Upon appeal, the Small Cause Court Judge came to the conclusion that 5 cottahs ought to be treated as solid land and that area ought to be valued at the rate of Rs. 400, the remainder in his opinion comprising an area of 15 cottahs 5 chataks ought to be valued at the rate of Rs. 225. It was quite competent to the Small Cause Court Judge to vary the valuation as he did. But he proceeded to hold--and this is the portion of his judgment to which exception is taken--that it was but reasonable that a certain portion of the premises distinctly demarcated should be separated from the remainder and assessed as vacant land, and he concluded his order with the following observations: 'From the entire area of the holding, the portion fenced off should be excluded and assessed as vacant land.' This part of the order is clearly without jurisdiction. In appeals preferred under Section 162, it is competent to the Small Cause Court Judge to deal with the question of valuation and that question alone. Corporation of Calcutta v. Bhupati Roy 26 C. 74 : 3 C.W.N. 70. As to the manner in which land is to be assessed, after the valuation has been settled, whether it is or is not to be assessed as vacant land, is a question entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge.

2. The result, therefore, is that this Rule must be made absolute and the order of the Small Cause Court Judge modified. That portion of the order which directs that certain part of the premises has to be fenced off and should be assessed as vacant land must be expunged. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this Rule. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //