Municipal Commissioner Lacks Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Objections Filed Against Proposed Amendments to Assessment Books

The petitioners are recorded owners of premises no. 20G, Park Street, Kolkata

On July 3, 2025, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a notice under Section 192(2) of the KMC Act, 1980, proposing to amend the municipal assessment book to increase the annual value from the 3rd quarter of 2004-05

The petitioners filed written objections

Instead of referring the matter to a Hearing Officer, the Municipal Commissioner personally adjudicated the objections on August 4, 2025, fixed the annual value at ₹31,17,660, and directed the issuance of supplementary bills

KMC subsequently issued further notices on August 29, 2025, and passed final orders on February 25, 2026, after the petitioners failed to respond to the second set of notices

Section 192 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which empowers the Municipal Commissioner to amend the assessment book

Section 192(2)(ii) mandates that if an objection is filed, the provisions of Sections 186 to 190 shall apply mutatis mutandis

Section 188, which requires objections to be determined by a Hearing Officer

Surendra Kumar Jalan v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation (AIR 2002 Cal 237), which held that once an objection is raised, the Commissioner loses the authority to amend personally and must refer the matter for adjudication

Sunil Kumar Singh v. KMC (2010 SCC OnLine Cal 395), noting it affirms the power to initiate amendment but does not authorize the Commissioner to adjudicate objections

The court reasoned that while the Municipal Commissioner has the exclusive power to propose an amendment to the assessment book under Section 192, this power is tentative and subject to the objection process

Once the petitioners filed their written objection, the statutory scheme under Section 192(2)(ii) stripped the Commissioner of his unilateral power to finalize the assessment

By personally hearing and disposing of the objection in his chamber and directing the fixation of value, the Commissioner adopted a "novel procedure" contrary to the mandate of Section 188

The court found that this was a colorable exercise of power and beyond his jurisdiction

Consequently, the subsequent notices issued on August 29, 2025, could not validate the process, as the initial adjudication was non est and void

On the second issue, it held that all consequential steps, including the supplementary bills and orders dated February 25, 2026, were unsustainable

The court quashed the order dated August 4, 2025, and the subsequent bills/orders

The matter was remanded to the KMC with directions for the Municipal Commissioner to appoint a Hearing Officer under Section 187 to decide the petitioners' objections in accordance with Section 188

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs