9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the legality of an assessment made by the Commissioners of the Town of Calcutta for a family dwelling-house in Bagbazar Street, challenged by the owners u/s writ of certiorari. Summary: The Chief Justice, Richard Garth, and Justice Arthur Wilson heard an appeal against the Court's order discharging a rule nisi obtained for a writ of certiorari to quash an assessment made by the Commissioners. The assessment was challenged as illegal, made on a principle not allowed by law. The Court below found the assessment to be on a wrong principle but within the Commissioners' powers. The High Court had the authority to quash the assessment if the Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction, despite provisions in the Calcutta Municipal Consolidation Act, 1876. In determining the Commissioners' powers in imposing rates, Sections 88 and 104 of the Act were considered together. The rates were to be based on the annual value of the property, defined as the gross annual rent at which the property might be expected to let from year to year. The assessment on the family dwelling-house was challenged as it was based on the estimated cost of the building rather than the annual letting value, as required by law. The applicants appealed the assessment, providing evidence that the property would not yield the assessed amount if let. The Commissioners, however, upheld the assessment based on their assessor's valuation, disregarding the legal principle of annual letting value. The Court found that the assessment was made on a fallacious and arbitrary basis, exceeding the Commissioners' powers as prescribed by law. Justice Arthur Wilson concurred with the Chief Justice, emphasizing that the error in assessment went beyond a mere mistake and amounted to an excess of jurisdiction by the Commissioners. Sections 64, 88, and 104 of the Act were analyzed to show that the assessment based on the cost of the building instead of the annual letting value exceeded the Commissioners' authority. The judgment reversed the Court's order and made the rule nisi for certiorari against the Corporation absolute, with costs awarded to the applicants.
|
