9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is governed by the provision of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to the Municipality of Howrah, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act;". 3. Admittedly, the Respondent Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. is the owner of a plot of land, measuring 2B-18K-I2Ch, together with separate structures thereon, which is numbered separately as premises Nos. 433 and 433/1, Grand Trunk Road (North). At one time premises No. 433 had been Jet out by the Respondent company to a tenant, who continued in occupation till September, 1950. 4. At the time of general re-valuation, effective from 3rd quarter 1948-49, the two premises had been separately assessed to municipal tax, in the manner hereinafter appearing: Premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road: (Let out to a tenant at Rs. 500 per month) 500xl2=Rs. 6,000 . Less 10 per cent=Rs. 600 Annual value Rs. 5,400 Tax at 22 per cent=Rs. 1,188 Premises No. 433/1, Grand Trunk Road: (In occupation of the owner) Value of land, 1B-9K at Rs. 2,600 per cottta=Rs. 75,400 Value of Building=Rs. 38,234 Total Rs. 1,13,034 Annual value at 5 per cent =Rs. 5,681 Tax at 22 per cent=Rs. 1,250. 5. After the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , of" which the material portion is quoted below: 11. Our formal letter of objection is enclosed herewith. We would refer you to our letter No. 510/AP.TD/2912, dated July 9, 1953, to the assessor in which we requested him to amalgamate holding Nos. 433 and 433/1, G. T. Road (North), which are contiguous and of which our clients are both owners and occupiers. We fail to see why these two holdings have not been amalgamated and would request you to consider this question again at the time of hearing. 12. The Administrator of the Municipality rejected the objection by the Assessee by an Order [ext. dated July 6, 1954, and confirmed the annual value of premises No. 433 at Rs. 6,494. 13. On July 7, 1954, the Respondent Company, through its agent S.K. Sawday and Company, applied for a copy of the Order, dated July 6, 1954. The application is marked ext. 1(f) hereafter on July 10/14, 1954, S.K. Sawday and Company on behalf of the Respondent, wrote a letter to the Administrator, Howrah Municipality, protesting against the order made by the Administrator on July 6, 1954. Material portions from the said letter [ext. A(1)] is quoted below. 14. On July, 6 last our Sri T. Das Gupta atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. On October 29, 1954, an appeal, as provided for by Section 141 of the Act, was filed by the Respondent Company against the order of increased assessment, made in respect of premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road. 20. Before the lower appellate court, the appeal was opposed by the Municipality, on various grounds, two of which need be noted here, namely, that the appeal was barred by limitation and secondly, that the amalgamation could not be granted because there had been no compliance with the rules for amalgamation of the two premises. In clarification, of the second objection, it was contended at the time of the hearing of the appeal, before the lower appellate court, that the application for amalgamation could not be granted in as much as the two holdings had separate water connections. 21. The lower appellate court rejected the contentions raised by the Municipality and allowed the appeal. The order of the Administrator of the Municipality assessing premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road, at an annual value of Rs. 6,494 was set aside and the Municipality was given liberty to re-asses holding No. 433. Grand Trunk Road, after dealing with the application for amalgamation accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the order, the same would be paid as soon as the Municipality advised the applicant regarding the amount. Thereafter a second reminder was sent by the Respondent on September 7, 1954, but even at that time the prescribed fee was not deposited. Ultimately the fee was deposited on September 10, 1954, as is evidenced by a receipt granted by the Howrah Municipality (ext. M) and the copy was made ready on September 13, 1954. The Respondent took delivery of the copy on September 21, 1954. According to Mr. Roy. the time from July 7, 1954: to September 21. 1954, was not the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against. The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. was not entitled to exclusion of this period under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. As such the appeal filed by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. on October 29, 1954, when the Civil Counts reopened after the Puja holidays, was barred by the special limitation prescribed under Section 141(2) of the Act. 25. The expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" as used in Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act is a strong expression; it means some thing more than time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited with the Record Keeper. On July 30, 1954, another note was made on the application, "Please write". We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the Municipality failed to prove that it had actually written to the Respondent asking for deposit of fees. 29. In our opinion, however, nothing turns on whether the Municipality did or did not make any demand for fees. If fees were legally payable, then it was the duty of the applicant the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. to apply on payment of fees or to pay the fees in due time, in any event, before the period of limitation ran out. 30. The real question, therefore, is whether the Municipality had any lawful right to levy fees for copying charges. Mr. Roy argued that under Section 351A of the Bengal Municipal Act 1884, which applied to the Howrah Municipality at the material time, the Commissioner at a meeting could make Rules as to the business and affairs of the Municipality. Such Rules, if made, were subject to the sanction of the Local Government and if sanctioned, had to be published in such manner as the Local Government might direct. Mr. Roy argued that Rules were actually framed under Section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not authorise Commissioners of Municipalities, to make rules for levy of fee or charges for supply of copies. Therefore, under the authority of that section the schedule of fees, as in ext. N, could not be framed. If the Howrah Municipality framed any domestic rules in the matter, as evidenced by the proceedings of the Budget Special Committee of the Municipality (ext. P), the same had No. legal validity. Therefore although such fees were all through being charged and although ultimately the Respondent company also paid the fees so as to get the copy, we are not prepared to hold that the non-payment of such fees till September 10, 1954 was an instance of negligence and carelessness and disentitled the Respondent Company to the benefits of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. We hold that the entire period from July 7, 1954 till September 13, 1954 if not till the 21st September 1954) should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. If the above period is excluded Mr. Roy admits, that no further question of limitation arises. We therefore hold that the appeal before the lower appellate court was not barred by limitation. 35. Turning now to the second objection of Mr. Roy, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the option of the owner to amalgamate his holdings. On such amalgamation physically being made the Chairman of a Municipality must assess the holdings on amalgamation after assigning to them one or more numbers. Here the Respondent did all that it could do by itself in the matter of amalgamation. If without one water connection, the amalgamation was not complete, a proposition which we very much doubt, it was the duty of the Municipality to speak to the effect and call upon the Respondent to take steps for one water connection. The Municipality could not ignore the letter altogether and proceed in the matter of re-valuation, as if so amalgamation had been effected or sought to be effected. 38. The argument of Mr. Roy that in this case the Respondent Company did not itself amalgamate the two premises but left the matter to be done by the Municipality does not appeal to us. In the context of events, to which reference has already been made, the language used in ext. A, the letter dated July 9, 1953, does not bear that interpretation. The language used in ext. A should be taken as one of politeness, informing the Assessor of the Municipality about the factum of amalgamation and ask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran Ghosh, witness No. 2, examined by the Municipality, speaks of service of notification under Section 137 of the Act. Exhibit E(2) also evidences service of such notice We do not find any reason why we should not hold that there was public notice of valuation given as required under Section 137 of the Act. We are of opinion, regard being had to the evidence on record, that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in declining to enter into the question whether or not public notice under Section 137 of the Act had been given. Since we hold that such public notice was given and since admittedly the Respondent Company did not prefer its objection to the valuation of premises No. 433/1 even after that, the Respondent Company lost its right to challenge that valuation. 43. If we now set aside the valuation of premises No. 433 and direct the valuation of the premises to be made on the basis of its amalgamation with premises No. 433/1, we would be really touching the valuation of premises No. 433/1, which has now become final, by operation of law. We should not do that because we have no jurisdiction now to touch the assessment of valuation of premises No. 433/1. 44. The Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
