TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from May 1, 1952, but as the valuation had originally been made by the respondent Corporation under the repealed Act it is that Act by which the question that arises will have to be determined. We may at this stage profitably refer to some of the sections in Ch. X of the Act for giving an idea of its scheme regarding the ascertainment of the annual value. Section 124 provides that a 'consolidated rate not exceeding twenty-three per cent on the annual valuation determined under Ch. X of the Act may be imposed by the Corporation upon all lands and buildings in Calcutta. Clauses (a) and (b) of s. 127 lay down two mutually exclusive methods for ascertaining the annual value. The method prescribed in cl. (a) is applicable where a building had been erected for letting purposes or was ordinarily let and under it the valuation has to be based on the rent which the land or building might reasonably fetch. Clause (b), on the other hand, covers all other cases and provides for the valuation being based on the cost of construction of the building and the value of the land. Section 131(1) provides that the valuation made under the preceding Municipal Acts shall remain in force for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable as such. There are sections which provide how the rates are to be realised but no reference to them is necessary. It is enough to say that the rates duly assessed impose a legal liability to pay them which can be enforced by distress or by proceedings in a court of law. Now in the present case the Corporation had assessed the annual value of the premises at a certain figure by applying the method prescribed in cl. (b) of S. 127. The appellant lodged various objections to it under S. 139. We are concerned only with two of these objections which were (1), the valuation had been made on a wrong basis as it should have been made by the method prescribed in cl. (a) of s. 127 and (2), the valuation was in any event unfair and excessive. The Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation, being the officer under the new Act which had then come into force who had replaced the Executive Officer under the Old Act, rejected all these objections except that he reduced the valuation slightly presumably on the ground of excessiveness. The appellant then appealed against the Commissioner's decision to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta under s. 141. The only point that the appellant raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 131(2)(b). It also gave certain consequential directions for the filing of a valuation before that Court by the Corporation and of objections thereto by the appellant and so on. It is this order of remand that the appellant challenges in this Court. It is not contended that the High Court had any statutory power to make the order of remand but it is said that the High Court had an inherent power to do so. Whether the High Court had the inherent power in a case like this may well be doubted. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in any case the order of remand was unjustifiable as it converted the appellant's appeal to the Court of Small Causes into a proceeding wholly alien to what it originally was meant for. It was said that the inherent power of remand could be exercised only for deciding the disputes that arose in the case as it stood; it could not be exercised for the decision of a matter which the proceedings in the Courts below did not raise, namely, the making of a new valuation on a wholly different basis. These contentions, in our view, deserve serious consideration. We think that there are other more fundamental objections to the order of remand. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made on the basis of the letting value of the premises instead of on the market value of the land and the cost of construction of the building as had previously been done by the Corporation. It would hardly be appropriate to call such a process, the revising of a valuation or the altering of a valuation previously made. Nothing is here revised or altered; what is done is to create a new thin- from the start and this without any reference whatsoever to any existing thing. We should suppose that a thing is revised or altered when it is, retained with some modifications. Thus when the figures of rent, cost or value on which a valuation is based are altered as excessive, or unfair or a larger depreciation than given is allowed and the total is suitably altered, that would be a case of revising or altering a valuation. The present is a wholly different case. The valuation which the High Court ordered to be made cannot hence be a revised or altered valuation. It is necessary now to refer to Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta(1). In that case, as in the case in hand, the rate-payer had appealed to the Court of Small Causes contending that the valuation had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation. In considering the scheme of the Act, the Royal Asiatic Society's case(3) further overlooked the fact that the Act required every valuation to be made by the Corporation under ss. 131 and 136 to 138 and that it gave the rate-payer a chance of attacking that valuation under s. 139, before coming to a Court for ventilating his grievance. These provisions would be ignored if the Court of Small Causes were to make the valuation itself. They indicate that the scheme of the Act was not as stated in that case. There it was also observed that the view taken received support from the observations of S. R. Das J. in the unreported judgment in North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta (3 ) mentioned in that case. We think however that those observations tend quite the other way for they were inter alia that, If, however, the Small Causes Court only sets aside the valuation made by the Corporation but does not itself fix the valuation, then s. 147 does not apply...... The matter must in such circum- stances be left to be governed by s. 131(2)(b). S. R. Das J. clearly contemplated that the Court of Small Causes was not bound to make a revised va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and confine it to procedural defects only. None, has been advanced. Such a contention was rejected, and we think rightly, in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chandoo Lal Bhai Chand Modi(1). That word clearly covers any case where a thing has not been done in the manner laid down by the statute, irrespective of what that manner might be. In principle there would be nothing to justify a special provision like s. 131(2)(b) being made to cover a case of procedural irregularity only. We can now deal with the reasoning on which the High Court in the present case justified its order of remand. It realised that by making the order it was depriving the appellant of one of its chances to object to the valuation, namely, the chance under s. 139, but it felt that by upholding that right of the appellant it would be depriving the Corporation of its rates wholly as the time (1) 57 C.W.N. 882. L7SUP./65-7 limit prescribed by s. 131(2)(b) had expired. It thought that it was faced with two evil-, and that it would be choosing the lesser ,of the two if it allowed the Corporation a chance to collect its rates. With great respect, we find this line of reasoning altogether unsupportable. A result f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint. They were, therefore, dealt with in one judgment by both the Courts below. Hence the two appeals before us. In the result we allow these. appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as the orders for remand are concerned and restore the judgment of the Court of Small Causes. The Corporation will pay the cost of these appeals. Ramasawami, J. These two appeals are brought, by -special leave, against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta dated August 3, 1959 in appeals from Original Orders in F.M.A. 124 and F.M.A. 125 of 1956. The appeals arise out of two valuations made by the Corporation of Calcutta in respect of premises No. 12, mission Row, Calcutta under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Bengal Act III of 1923). At the general revaluation, the disputed premises were assessed to an annual value of ₹ 1,45,354/-, to come into effect from the second quarter 194950, i.e., from July 1, 1949. The assessment was made under the provision of s. 127(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The assessee objected to the valuation, both in regard to the quantum and the method of valuation and the Deputy Commissioner No. 1 of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. Section 131 deals with the assessment of the annual valuation and the duration of the assessment. It reads : 131 (1)................ the Executive Officer may make a fresh valuation of the lands and buildings in each such ward under this Act, and the annual value of such lands and buildings in each such ward shall, after such assessment, has been made by the Executive Officer, have effect for a period of six years and may be revised thereafter by the Executive Officer at the termination of successive periods of six years. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of the following conditions shall apply in the several cases hereinafter specified, namely- (a)................................ (b) any land or building the valuation of which has been cancelled on the ground of irregularity, or which for any other reason has no annual value assigned to it under this Act, may be valued by the Executive Officer, at any time during the currency of the period prescribed in respect of such land or building by sub-section (1) and such valuation shall remain in force, and the consolidated rate shall be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of section 141, be final. (3) An appeal from a decision made by the Court of Small Causes under section 141 shall lie to the High Court. Section 147 provides for the period for which the revised valuation is to continue in force. It is to the following effect : 147. When the valuation of any land or building is revised in consequence of an objection made under section 139 or section 146, sub-section (2), or an appeal is preferred under section 141, the revised valuation shall take effect from the quarter in which the first mentioned valuation would have taken effect, and shall continue in force for the period for which the said first mentioned valuation was made, and no longer. Section 164 makes provisions for the payment of the consolidated rate and how far the payment is affected by objections to valua- tion. It states as follows 164(1 )When an objection to a valuation has been made under section 139, the consolidated rate shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be paid on the previous valuation. (2) If, when the objection has been finally determined, the previous valuation is altered, then (a) any sum paid in excess shall be refunded or al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet been finally determined; the matter is still awaiting final adjudication. It is, therefore, not correct to say that there has been a cancellation of the valuation within the meaning of s. 131 (2) (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. I am on the contrary, of the opinion that the case falls under the purview of s. 147 of the Municipal Act, 1923 and the present case is a case of revision of the valuation within the meaning of that section and the revised valuation when finally determined will take effect retrospectively from the point of time mentioned in that section. In my opinion, the Additional Solicitor- General is unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the case. It was then contended on behalf of the appellant that the order of remand made by the High Court was illegal because it was beyond the scope of the objection made by the appellant under s. 139 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It was contended that the appellant has objected only to the basis of the valuation and not to the quantum and, therefore, the order of remand made by the High Court was not in accordance with law. I am unable to accept this argument as correct. The objection made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
