JAYDIP GANGULY v. THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

#5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner and would submit that the aforesaid determination of annual valuation is irregular. The petitioner had never acceded to the annual valuation as proposed. According to him, the petitioner had been fighting tooth and nail for several years and, as such, there was no question on the part of the petitioner to accede to the proposed annual valuation. According to him, the officials who were present at the hearing had forced the petitioner to accept the annual valuation under threat of dire consequences and, accordingly, the petitioner was compelled to sign on the impugned order sheet. In the facts as noted here, the entire proceedings should be quashed and the matter remanded back to the authorities. 3

#6. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the municipal. He would submit that in the instant case, records would reflect that since the petitioner had accepted the annual valuation from the 3rd quarter of 2012-13 to be Rs.21,791/-, no contrary statement can be accepted. He would further submit that since there is an appellate provision, the writ petition should not be entertained.

#7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find admittedly, in this case the previous two notices as noted above revising the annual valuation had been quashed though on technical grounds. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the municipality had issued notices and the petitioner had participated in such hearing. Records would also reveal that on 8th April, 2024, the petitioner was personally present and according to the recording made in the order, the petitioner agrees to accept the annual valuation since the 3rd quarter of 2012-13 at Rs.21,791/-. To more fully appreciate the same, the relevant portion of the order is extracted herein. “Sri Joydeep Ganguly recorded owner appears. Heard Sri Sudipta Mondal, DAC & Sri N. Laskar, Inspector. After a long discussion Sri Ganguly agrees to accept AV since 3/2012-13 at Rs.21,790/-. Inform. As per report drawn by KMC official, new addition of the building is found. Accordingly Sri Ganguly is requested to submit a detailed by addition, Seen order and agreed. Sd/- (illegible) Sd/- Sd/ (illegible) Sd/- Joydip Ganguly. 8/4/24 8/4/24 Sudipta Mandal DAC”

#8. Although the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid order was accepted by the petitioner under the threat of dire consequences and the official of the municipality has forced the petitioner to accept the same, there is no immediate or contemporaneous rebuttal with regard to the same. In fact, between 8th April, 2024 and 29th April, 2024 i.e. for 21 days, the petitioner 4 chose not to make any communication or hold out that he was forced to accept the valuation. Subsequently, on 30th April 2024, the petitioner through an Advocate's letter stated that the municipality had forced the petitioner to accept the same under pressure and he put his signature. There is no police complaint made by the petitioner in this regard. Though, a statement in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 27 of the writ petition, such a statement has not even been affirmed by the petitioner as true to his knowledge. The same has been affirmed in the affidavit as submissions. Particulars of event or the words exchanged have also not been provided. No statement has been made as to who had in particular forced the petitioner to sign and accept the valuation. Vague assertion has been made to wriggle out of the acceptance of the annual valuation. Further these allegations deal with disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently decided by this Court.

#9. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no scope to enter into the disputed questions of fact especially when an appellate forum is available.

#10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) akg/