MUKTA LALL SHAW AND ORS vs THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026

MUKTA LALL SHAW AND ORS.
VS
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.


For the petitioner : Mr. Biswaraup Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Pratik Majumder, Adv.
Mr. Snehasish Dey, Adv.
Mr. Subhradip Roy, Adv.

For the KMC : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Dasadhikari, Adv.

Heard on : 13.05.2026 & 14.05.2026

th
Judgment on : 14 May, 2026



RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J:


th
1. Challenging the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 4
August, 2025 in terms of Section 192 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act
1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), the instant writ petition has
been filed. The petitioners have also sought for consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioners’ case proceeds on the premise that by a registered indenture
th
dated 17 January, 1942, one Birendra Kumar Shaw, since deceased, had
purchased from the National Life Insurance Company Limited, all that land
admeasuring 1 Bigha, 11 Cottah 8 Chittaks and 41 Sq. Ft. being premises
no.20 Park Street, formerly known as premises no.4 Park Street, Kolkata.
Later, the aforesaid premises was subdivided into 10 premises, which were

2 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
renumbered as 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20E, 20F, 20G, 20H, 20J and 20K, Park
Street, Kolkata together with partly four storeyed, partly two storeyed and
partly one storeyed buildings built and erected thereon. By passage of time,
the petitioners claim to have acquired the interest in respect of the premises
no.20G, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016 along with a G+5 storeyed building
and are recorded owners in respect thereof, in the books of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation. According to the petitioners, in the year 2004, the building had
four floors and later in the year 2013-14, an additional floor was constructed.
Presently, the construction standing at the premises is in conformity with
th
municipal laws. The petitioners claim to have executed a long lease on 25
September, 2024 in respect of the G+4 storeyed building standing thereon in
favour of one Abhishek Entertainment & Foods Pvt. Ltd. According to the
st
petitioners, as on 21 July, 2025, No Outstanding Certificate (NOC) has been
issued by the office of the Assessor Collector in respect of the said premises.
rd
Incidentally, on 3 July, 2025, the petitioners were served with a notice issued
under Section 192(2) of the said Act intimating that the Municipal
Commissioner will proceed to amend the municipal books under Section
192(1)(iv) of the said Act in connection with the above premises for the period
rd nd
w.e.f. 3 quarter of 2004-05 on 22 July, 2025 at 11:00 A.M., at his chamber.
Accordingly, intimation thereof was given to the petitioners. The petitioners
were further required to submit their objection, if any, within a period of 3
days from the receipt of such notice.
3. Records would reveal that upon receipt of such intimation, the petitioners had
duly filed a written objection in terms of Section 186 of the said Act. The
petitioners would contend that once, an objection was filed in connection with
the notice under Section 192(2) of the said Act, it was the obligation of the

3 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
commissioner to refer the matter to the Hearing Officer and to have the
objection heard out in terms of Section 188 of the said Act.
4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the petitioners has, however,
by drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by the Municipal
Commissioner would submit that the Municipal Commissioner himself upon
determining and disposing of the objection had, inter alia, directed the
rd
municipal assessment book to be altered w.e.f. the 3 quarter of 2004-05 by
fixing the annual value at Rs.31,17,660/- by cancelling the existing
nd
assessment w.e.f. the 2 quarter of 2006-07 and the department was directed
to proceed accordingly. Following the same, the supplementary bills were
th
raised. Such fact would corroborate from the supplementary bills dated 5
August, 2025 appearing at page nos.109 and 110 of the writ petition. Mr.
Bhattacharya would submit that the procedure adopted by the Municipal
Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of Section 192(2) of the said Act.
According to him, once an objection is filed, it was the obligation of the
Municipal Commissioner to have such objection heard out in terms of section
188 of the said Act inasmuch as the provisions of Section 192 of the said Act
clearly specifies the manner in which an objection is to be heard. Such a
procedure has not been adopted in this case. According to him, there is a
procedural irregularity committed by the Municipal Commissioner.
Accordingly, all consequential steps taken thereon are bad, the aforesaid is a
colourable exercise of power and the same should be set at naught. In support
of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by
the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jalan
and Others v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Others . reported in AIR
2002 Cal 237 .

4 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears for the municipality. He would
submit that the facts in this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, in this case,
the Municipal Commissioner has taken a decision to amend the assessment
book. Such decision had been taken in terms of the provisions contained in
Section 192 of the said Act. There is no irregularity in this regard. He submits
that having regard to the scope of Section 192 of the said Act, once, a decision
was taken by the Municipal Commissioner to propose an enhanced valuation,
the same was communicated to the petitioners by issuing a notice as
th
appearing at page 112 of the writ petition dated 29 August, 2025. Though the
petitioners were at liberty to respond to the same, the petitioners having not
responded, the consequence as provided for in Section 192(2) has been applied
and a demand has been raised on the petitioners. The petitioners thus, having
th
not responded to the proposal vide notice dated 29 August, 2025, have in fact
forfeited their right to object and it is too late in the day for the petitioners to
challenge the same on the ground of irregularity or violation of principles of
natural justice. The determination of enhanced annual valuation would reflect
th
from the orders all dated 25 February, 2026, which forms part of the interim
application being GA/1/2026. Consequent thereupon, supplementary bills
have also been raised on the said date. This apart, he would submit that it is
the Municipal Commissioner who alone has the power to amend the
assessment book under Section 192(2) of the said Act. In support thereof,
reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench in the
case of Sunil Kumar Singh & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation &
Ors. , reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 395 .
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find
that in the instant case, a valuation has already been entered in respect of the
rd
period with effect from the 3 quarter of 2004-05 concerning the said premises

5 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
in the municipal assessment book in terms of Section 190 and191 of the said
rd
Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 192(2) of the said Act dated 3 July,
2025 has been issued. The petitioners appear to have responded to such
notice by filing a written objection to the proposed enhancement. Admittedly,
in this case, the Municipal Commissioner had himself determined the
enhanced valuation upon conducting a hearing under Section 192(1)(vi) read
nd
with Section 192(2) of the said Act at his chamber on 22 July, 2025.
Following the aforesaid and upon considering the objections as recorded in the
said order, the Municipal Commissioner had disposed of the proceedings by
passing the following order.
“ 5. KMC’s Prior Knowledge Does Not Excuse Suppression:
While trade license and amusement tax records may indicate business
activity, they do not substitute the statutory duty of the Recorded Owners
to file correct Returns under Section 182 of the KMC Act. The Lease
Agreement was disclosed to KMC only in March 2025, despite having
been executed in 2004.
Thus, the objection is also considered and dealt with accordingly.
ORDER:
Upon consideration of the objection, lease documents, statutory provisions
and relevant judicial pronouncements, I hereby amend the Municipal
rd
Assessment Book with effect from 3 Quarter of 2004-05 by fixation of
the Annual value at Rs.31,17,660/- and on cancellation of the existing
nd
assessment with effect from 2 quarter of 2006-07.
The department concerned is directed to proceed accordingly and take
steps for revision of demand and recovery as per law.”

7. As would appear from above order, the objection raised by the petitioners was
clearly dealt with by the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal
Commissioner had directed amendment of the municipal assessment book.
The matter did not stop there. The supplementary bills were also generated in
th
furtherance to the aforesaid order dated 4 August, 2025. Subsequently,

6 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
th
however, a notice was issued on 28 August, 2025 proposing the aforesaid
enhanced valuation.
8. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the
Municipal Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction and/or authority in
determining and revising the annual valuation and whether by issuance of the
th
notice dated 29 August, 2025, the municipal authority has complied with the
provisions of law. In this context, I find and as pointed out by Mr.
Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the petitioners that though the
Municipal Commissioner is authorized under Section 192 of the said Act,
under certain circumstances noted therein to issue a notice to the recorded
owner or the recorded person liable to pay tax of the land and building on
which any amendment of the assessment book is intended to be made and
though specific procedure has been laid down to be followed by the Municipal
Commissioner in case an objection is filed, in this case, I find such procedure
was not followed. The Municipal Commissioner has adopted a novel procedure
to adjudicate on the objection himself contrary to the provisions of Section
192(2)(ii) of the said Act. Ordinarily, when an objection is filed to a proposed
amendment in terms of Section 192(2)(ii), the Municipal Commissioner is
under an obligation, having regard to the determination of such objection in
terms of Sections 186 to 190 of the said Act, to appoint a Hearing Officer and
for the hearing officer to decide the same in accordance with Section 188 of the
said Act. The same has not been done. The Municipal Commissioner himself
decided on the objection and had passed an order following which
supplementary bills had been raised. The manner of exercise of authority by
the Municipal Commissioner has already been considered by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jalan (supra). The Court
in paragraphs 15 and 23 has returned the following finding.

7 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the scheme of assessment of valuation as provided in the Act, I
find that being dissatisfied with an adjudication made by a Hearing
Officer, only remedy available to an assessee is that of an appeal
under S. 189 of the Act before Tribunal on compliance of the formalities
mentioned therein. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and
annual valuation so determined shall be entered into the Municipal
Assessment Book. Once such valuation has been entered into the
Municipal Assessment Book as provided under S. 191, the Municipal
Commissioner alone can come up with a proposal to amend the said
Municipal Assessment Book as provided in S. 192. Such power has
been conferred upon the Municipal Commissioner for doing complete
justice in case of any mistake, error, fraud or subsequent events and
such amendment can be made only after giving notice to the
owner/lessee/sub-lessee or occupier of the building. But once objection
is raised by such owner/lessee/sub-lessee/occupier to the proposed
amendment, the Municipal Commissioner loses his authority to amend
and in such a case he is required to send the objection to the proposed
amendment to the Hearing Officer for adjudication and thereafter the
provisions contained in S. 186 to 189 will apply mutatis mutandis as
enjoined by S. 192(2)(ii) of the Act. But if no objection is raised, the
Municipal Commissioner can himself amend the Municipal Assessment
book.
xxx xxx xxx
23. In all the aforesaid decisions the authority concerned had suo motu
power of review its own decision and in such circumstance it was held
that a party to such decision could ask the authority to review by
drawing attention of the authority concern to the mistakes. Those
decisions could apply to the present case only if the Municipal
Commissioner had the authority to review the decision of the Hearing
Officer or the Tribunal. Here, I have already pointed out that the Act
does not authorize Municipal Commissioner to adjudicate the objection
raised by an assessee against a proposed valuation by him but such
objection is decided by the Hearing Officer and threafter by Tribunal in
appeal. Thus, it is preposterous to contend that the order passed by the
Hearing Officer or Tribunal can be reviewed by the Municipal

8 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
Commissioner at the instance of the assessee. The provision contained
in S. 192 is merely a remedial one available to the Municipal
commissioner alone. Therefore, the Municipal Commissioner rightly
ignored the application for review of the order of Hearing Officer
determining objection against proposed valuation. ”


9. In this context, it may be noted that though, by placing reliance on a judgment
delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar
Singh & Anr. (supra) the learned advocate for the municipality would insist
that it is within the power and competence of the Municipal Commissioner to
exercise authority under Section 192 of the said Act and the order passed
under section 192 of the said Act is in consonance with the provisions of the
said Act and the same cannot be doubted, a finding which has been recorded
in paragraph 7 of the above judgment, I find that the issue of consideration of
the objection by the Municipal Commissioner and the adjudication thereof has
not dealt with in the said judgment. What fell for consideration in the aforesaid
case is whether the Municipal Commissioner had the power to amend the
valuation by invoking the power under Section 192 of the said Act. It is in that
context that the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by considering the
power of the Municipal Commissioner to enhance the valuation even after the
final valuation is fixed and is recorded in the municipal assessment book, in
paragraph 7 thereof had returned the finding that it is for the Municipal
Commissioner alone to take a decision under Section 192. Therefore,
ordinarily, a valuation made under the said Act is treated to be final under
Section 190 thereof, however, it is the Municipal Commission who enjoys a
special power under Section 192 of the said Act to amend the Municipal
Assessment book subject to sub-section (2) thereof. This decision to amend,
having regard to the provisions of the said Act is only tentative and is subject

9 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
to objection as provided for in sub-section (2) thereof. To morefully appreciate
the same, Section 192 is extracted hereinbelow:-
“192. Amendment of Municipal Assessment Book.-( 1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 190 the Municipal
Commissioner may, at any time, amend the Municipal Assessment
Book-
(i) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name
ought to be inserted; or
(ii) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted
together with valuation thereof; or
(iii) by striking out the name of any person or any land or
building not liable for the payment of '[property tax]; or
(iv) by increasing or decreasing for adequate reasons the amount
of any annual value and of the '[property tax] thereupon; or
(v) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or
building from liability to '[property tax]; or
(vi) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has
been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake
or accident, in which case such alteration shall take effect
from the date such erroneous valuation or assessment took
effect; or
(vii) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building
erected, re-erected, or added to, after the preparation of the
assessment book, in which case such insertion or alteration
shall take effect from the date such erection, re-erection,
alteration or addition was made.
(2) (1) Incidence of '[property tax] on lands and buildings. A notice of not
less than fifteen days shall be given to 2[the recorded owner or the re-
corded person liable to pay tax] of the land or building of the place,
time and date on which any amendment of the Assessment Book is
intended to be made under this section.
(ii) Any person on whom a notice of amendment is served under
this sub-section may file an objection in writing to the Municipal
Commissioner at Jeast three days before the date fixed in the notice

10 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
and the provisions of sections 186 to 190 shall apply, mutatis
mutandis, to such objection. ”

10. In my view, the aforesaid judgment is not an authority for the manner an
adjudication shall be made, once, an objection is filed, the provisions of section
186 to section 190 in such case would apply. Rather the aforesaid judgment
deals with the authority of the Municipal Commissioner at the first instance to
invoke its powers under Section 192 of the said Act and initiate the
amendment process, which power he alone has.
11. The instant matter, however, has another aspect which requires consideration.
I find in the instant case, Mr. Mukherjee would submit that notwithstanding a
decision being rendered by the Municipal Commissioner initially, since such a
decision could only be treated as a proposal, the municipal authority had
th
subsequently issued the notices on 29 August 2025. Since such notices were
th
not responded to, by the petitioner, the orders dated 25 February, 2026 were
passed following which supplementary bills were raised. In this context, I may
note that for the municipal authority to proceed afresh by issuing the notice
th
dated 29 August, 2025, the Municipal Commissioner ought to have taken a
tentative decision at the first instance. The Municipal Commissioner ought not
to have disposed of the objection filed by the petitioners. The Municipal
Commissioner, in my view, was not clothed with the authority and/or
jurisdiction to hear out and decide the objection filed by the petitioners. The
th
aforesaid decision rendered by the Municipal Commissioner dated 4 August,
2025 appears to have been issued in colourable exercise of power, beyond
jurisdiction, non est and cannot be acted upon. All consequential steps taken
by the municipal authority cannot be sustained. The same including the
consequential orders and the supplementary bills are quashed.

11 WPO/727/2025
IA No.GA/1/2026
12. The matter is remanded back to the municipal authority from the stage of
filing of the objection by the petitioners for the Municipal Commissioner to
appoint a Hearing Officer in terms of Section 187 of the said Act for a decision
to be taken under section 188 thereto. Once, such decision is taken all
consequences shall follow.
13. Having regard thereto, the objection fails. The writ petition is allowed.
14. The connected application being GA/1/2026 accordingly stands disposed of.
15. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.


(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)


akg/R. Bose