Skip to content


Sk. Qumru Alam. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata Appellate High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.O. No. 3511 of 2009
Judge
AppellantSk. Qumru Alam.
RespondentThe Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Advocates:Mr. Sanat Kumar Biswas, Adv
Excerpt:
[d.y. chandrachud; anoop v. mohta; roshan dalvi, jj.] - constitution of india - articles 226, 227, 32; bombay industrial relations act, 1946 - section 78; code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) - section 115; bombay high court original side rules, 1957 - power of high courts to issue certain writs -- in an appeal by the employer, the industrial court set aside the order of the labour court. in a challenge by the workman to the order of the industrial court, in a petition which invoked articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, a learned single judge of this court delivered judgment which was questioned in a letters patent appeal. writ jurisdiction under article 226 can be exercised for that purpose. is it a correct proposition of law that jurisdictional errors or errors resulting in..........annual valuation of the said flat to the tune of rs.69,320/-. the petitioner raised a dispute. the hearing officer took up the matter and he fixed the annual valuation of rs.46,380/- with effect from third quarter of 2002- 03. being aggrieved, he filed the misc. appeal which was disposed of by the impugned order holding the annual valuation as rs.34,760/-. the petitioner was not satisfied with such determination and he then filed this revisional application. now, the question is whether the judgment and order under challenge should be sustained.3. upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, i find that there is no dispute that the petitioner got possession of the flat no.se (5th floor) at 23, marquis street, police station new market,.....
Judgment:
1. Challenge is to the order dated March 26, 2009 passed by the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, First Bench, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.2171 of 2007. The appellant has preferred this application contending, inter alia, that he entered into an agreement for sale of a flat with M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Private Limited Company at premises no.23, Marquis Street under Police Station New Market as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them. Amongst other clauses, the petitioner was to get the said flat bearing no.SE having an area of 1540.50 square feet. At the time of getting possession, the petitioner noticed that he got the flat with an area of 1050 square feet instead of 1540.50 square feet as per agreement. Since he got less area he took appropriate steps before the Consumer Forum.

2. In the meantime, the Assessor Collector (South), opposite party no.2 herein, assessed the annual valuation of the said flat to the tune of Rs.69,320/-. The petitioner raised a dispute. The Hearing Officer took up the matter and he fixed the annual valuation of Rs.46,380/- with effect from third quarter of 2002- 03. Being aggrieved, he filed the misc. appeal which was disposed of by the impugned order holding the annual valuation as Rs.34,760/-. The petitioner was not satisfied with such determination and he then filed this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the judgment and order under challenge should be sustained.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner got possession of the flat no.SE (5th floor) at 23, Marquis Street, Police Station New Market, Kolkata 700 016 from the M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Private Limited Company. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that they got the possession of the said flat in August, 2005 whereas the assessment was done by the Hearing Officer as well as the appellate forum effective from the third quarter of 2002-2003.

4. The contention is that since he did not get any possession at that time, he was not bound to pay the required fees for the valuation assessed with effect from third quarter of 2002-2003. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that though the agreement was held between the petitioner and M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Private Limited Company for delivering a flat having an area of 1540.50 square feet, in fact he got the said flat having an area of 1050 square feet only. On these two grounds, the Hearing Officer and the appellate forum have not come to a clear finding. From the materials placed before me, it appears that the annual valuation has been calculated on the basis of the agreement between the promoter and the petitioner. But the real measurement of the flat which the petitioner has actually taken possession has not been taken into consideration. There is no whisper that such objection raised by the petitioner was duly considered and rejected. Under the circumstances, without recording any details about the matter in dispute, I am of the view that it would be prudent to set aside the impugned order and to direct the Hearing Officer to hear the matter again taking into account the objections raised by the petitioner, as stated above and thereafter to come a decision afresh.

5. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. It is set aside. The concerned Hearing Officer is directed to hear the matter again taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner, as stated above. Thereafter, he shall come to a clear finding in accordance with law. Such exercise must be done within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

6. This application is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

7. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.


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