Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) decision to revise the annual valuation of a property for the period 2006-2011, holding that the civic body was entitled to correct an earlier assessment once it found that material facts relating to the property had not been disclosed during the original valuation exercise.
The case concerns a multi-floor premises at 27, Maharaja Trilokya Sarani (formerly Brabourne Road), part of which had been leased to a bank. After several disputes over rent and possession were resolved, a Division Bench in January 2020 allowed the landlord and the bank to approach KMC for a fresh determination of their proportionate shares of municipal taxes and surcharge for April 2006 to September 2011. Acting on that direction, KMC examined the records, cancelled its previous valuation and proposed a higher annual valuation starting from the third quarter of 2006–07. The landlord challenged this revision, arguing KMC had no authority to reopen valuation for that period and had gone beyond the scope of 2020 court order. It was also claimed that the Corporation had not followed the statutory procedure and that the circumstances required for reopening a valuation were not present.
In response, KMC said that when the earlier assessment was carried out, neither the landlord nor the bank had disclosed the registered lease agreement, although the rent payable under that agreement formed the basis of valuation. The Corporation told the Court that this omission resulted in an incorrect earlier assessment. After the lease terms surfaced during later litigation, KMC treated them as evidence of an error and proceeded to correct the valuation. The Corporation said it issued notices, held hearings and considered objections before finalising the revised figures. The bank supported KMC’s position and informed the Court that it had already paid its enhanced share of municipal taxes and surcharge. The bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay accepted the Corporation’s explanation. It held that the lease agreement and the terms of settlement recorded in appeal were “substantial and sufficient evidence” showing that the earlier valuation did not reflect the correct rent. This, the court said, gave KMC the legal basis to revise the valuation under Section 192 of the KMC Act.
The judge also noted that notices had been served and hearings held and found no procedural impropriety in the valuation exercise. Dismissing the writ petition, the court allowed the revised annual valuation, the rate card and the supplementary bills issued by KMC to stand.