1958 (2) TMI 56 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for filing the appeal.
2. Amalgamation of premises under Section 134 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.
3. Validity of assessment of premises No. 433 and 433/1, Grand Trunk Road.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for notification and objection under Sections 137 and 138 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation for Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue of limitation was addressed under Sections 141(2) and (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, which stipulate that an appeal must be presented within thirty days from the date of the order. The appellant argued that the respondent's appeal was barred by limitation as the application for a copy of the order was not accompanied by the prescribed fee until September 10, 1954, whereas the application for the copy was made on July 7, 1954. The court held that the delay in paying the fee did not amount to negligence or carelessness because the fee schedule lacked statutory validity. Consequently, the court excluded the period from July 7, 1954, to September 13, 1954, in computing the limitation period, thereby validating the respondent's appeal.

2. Amalgamation of Premises under Section 134:
The court examined whether the amalgamation of premises Nos. 433 and 433/1 was properly effected. Section 134 of the Act mandates that the Chairman must assess amalgamated holdings after assigning new numbers. The respondent had physically amalgamated the premises by removing separation marks but retained separate water connections. The court held that the Municipality should have addressed the issue of water connections and called upon the respondent to take steps for a single water connection if it was a prerequisite for amalgamation. The Municipality's failure to act on the respondent's request for amalgamation was deemed improper.

3. Validity of Assessment:
The court found that the Municipality erred in assessing the premises separately despite the amalgamation request. However, the respondent did not appeal against the valuation of premises No. 433/1, which had become final. The court concluded that setting aside the valuation of premises No. 433 and ordering a reassessment on the basis of amalgamation would indirectly affect the final valuation of premises No. 433/1, which was beyond the court's jurisdiction.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The respondent argued that it was not served with a notice under Section 138, nor was there a public notification under Section 137 regarding the valuation of premises No. 433/1. The court found evidence of public notification and held that the respondent should have taken timely steps to object to the valuation. The court determined that the respondent's failure to challenge the valuation of premises No. 433/1 resulted in the finality of that assessment, precluding any further challenge.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and affirmed the assessment of premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road. The respondent's failure to timely object to the valuation of premises No. 433/1 led to the finality of that assessment, and the court lacked jurisdiction to alter it indirectly. Consequently, the amalgamation was not recognized for assessment purposes, and the initial separate assessments were upheld.