JUDGMENT 1. BOTH these writ applications being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. SHORTLY stated the fact of the matter is as follows : The Estate of Chitra Dasi is a trust which is owner of Premises no. 17, 17/1 and 17/1/1, Kashi Nath Mullick Lane and 6, Ramlochan mullick Street. The respondent No. 5 is the official trustee of the said trust. The aforementioned premises measure approximately 52 cottahs. On 21st January, 1950 the official trustee granted a lease of the aforementioned premises in favour of the writ petitioner for a period of 75 years. Out of an area of 52 cottahs of land, possession of 39 cottahs of land had been handed over. It is stated that the remaining portion of the land is in occupation of some persons who claimed themselves to be thika tenants. 3. AN originating summons being O/s 591 of 1955 was instituted by the petitioner against the official trustee for determination of the question as to whether it is liable to pay rates and taxes in respect of 11 cottahs of land, possession whereof had not been delivered. The said originating summons was disposed of with a direction that both the lessor and the lessee shall bear the burden of payment of said rates and taxes in equal proportion. It was further provided that in the event possession of the said portion was delivered to the lessee, it would bear and pay the rates and taxes in its entirely from the date of delivery of such possession. The said three premises in Kashi Nath Mullick Lane were amalgamated into one premises namely, 17, Kashi Nath Mullick Lane. Till 1st quarter of 1988-89 the annual valuation of premises No. 17 was assessed as Rs. 2,20,759/ On 20th June, 1988, however, a notice had been issued under section 184 (4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act proposing to increase the annual valuation from Rs. 2,20,759/- to Rs. 4,51,380/- with effect from 2nd quarter 1988-89 on the alleged ground that substantial repair work, addition, alterations and improvements had been made to the building. 2,20,759/ On 20th June, 1988, however, a notice had been issued under section 184 (4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act proposing to increase the annual valuation from Rs. 2,20,759/- to Rs. 4,51,380/- with effect from 2nd quarter 1988-89 on the alleged ground that substantial repair work, addition, alterations and improvements had been made to the building. The petitioners contend that a four storeyed pucca building, has been illegally constructed on the back portion of the former premises i.e. 17/1, Kashi Nath Mullick Lane by some outsiders and possession whereof had not delivered to them but identities and status have not been disclosed either by the petitioners or by the official trustee. The first writ application was filed questioning the said notice dated 20th June, 1988 and an interim order was passed from giving effect to the said notice and staying all proceedings pursuant thereto. 4. DESPITE the said interim order a notice of hearing was served whereafter a written objection was filed by official trustee on 6th September, 1989. No action thereafter had been taken for a long period of 9 years. Another notice was issued on 18th June, 1997 by the respondent-Corporation purported to be under Section 184 (3) of Calcutta municipal Corporation Act, 1980 whereby and where under annual valuation was assessed at Rs. 4,53,600/- with effect from 4th quarter 1993-94. Although the said notice was addressed to the official trustee care of the petitioner, the official trustee alleges that no such notice was served on it but admittedly pursuant to or in furtherance of the said notice, the petitioner attended the hearing on 22nd July, 1997 and upon being informed about the said order of injunction dated 7th October, 1988 the matter was allegedly adjourned till 22nd August, 1997 by the Hearing officer. Another notice was caused to be issued and received by the petitioner on 26th July, 1997 stating that annual valuation of the premises have been assessed at Rs, 4,51,380/- with effect from the 2nd quarter of 1988-89 and the same would remain inforce for a period of six years. The ground for increased valuation allegedly had arisen out of taxable event in the intervening period wherefor hearing was fixed on 25th August, 1997. After some adjournments hearing was held on 17th February, 1998 whereafter on 5th March, 1998 the petitioner received 2 rate cards intimating the order revising annual valuation at Rs. The ground for increased valuation allegedly had arisen out of taxable event in the intervening period wherefor hearing was fixed on 25th August, 1997. After some adjournments hearing was held on 17th February, 1998 whereafter on 5th March, 1998 the petitioner received 2 rate cards intimating the order revising annual valuation at Rs. 4,13,270/- with effect from 2nd quarter of 1989-90 and Rs. 4,19,060/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1993-94. A supplementary bill was also issued to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,35,240/- for the 4th quarter 1993-94 to 4th quarter 1997-98. Thereafter the writ petition No. 896 of 1998 was filed claiming inter alia for the following reliefs : "(a) Declaration that the said Hearing Notice dated 18th June, 1997 and 16th July, 1997 being Annexure 'f' and 'g' hereto and all steps taken in pursuance thereof and the said Supplementary Bill being annexure 'j' hereto are illegal and void and not binding upon the petitioners. (b) A writ of or in the nature of a Mandamus or appropriate directions do issue commanding and directing the respondents to withdraw, recall and cancel the said purported orders contained in the said Rate Cards being Annexure 'h' and 'i' hereto and the supplementary Bill being Annexure 'j' hereto and to forbear from giving any effect hereto or acting in terms thereto". 5. MR. S. K. Kapoor, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5, inter alia, submitted : (1) in case of a sub-tenancy only a superior lessor is bound to pay the rates and taxes in terms of section 193 (1) of the Act. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court (of which i was a member) being G. A. No. 1065 of 1998, APOT No. 201 of 1998 arising out of Writ Petition No. 279 of 19go (Saturday Club Limited vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors.) (2) No rates and taxes are payable in respect of building which has been constructed unauthorisedly without obtaining sanction from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. (3) In any event, neither the petitioners nor the official trustee are/is responsible for payment of rates and taxes for such construction. (3) In any event, neither the petitioners nor the official trustee are/is responsible for payment of rates and taxes for such construction. (4) In any event, the impugned assessment having been made in violation of the order of injunction, the same must be held to be bad in law. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Clarke and Ors. vs. Chadburn and Ors., reported in 1985 (1) AER 211, Krishna Kumar Khemka vs. Grindlays Bank P. L. C. and Ors, reported in AIR 1991 SC (399 and Century Flour Mills Ltd. vs. S. Suppiah and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 Madras 270. 6. MR. Das Adhikary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the calcutta Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the plea that a prat of 17, Kashi Nath Mullick Lane is a thika tenancy land having not been averred by the petitioners, such a plea cannot be taken either by them or by the official trustee. In any event, in the records of respondents-Corporation, the names of the official trustee and the petitioners having been recorded, the respondents are not concerned as to whether any trespasser has constructed any building on and portion of the holding in question as it is the duty of the owners to protect their own interest. It is contended that 6, Ram Lochan Mullick Street is a separate premises and the same premises is not connected with the instant writ application and, thus, even if the said premises is occupied by thika tenant, the same cannot be considered in this writ application. Mr. Das adhikary would Urge that apart from Raghu Vanshi (P) Ltd., no other tenant pays rent to the official trustee in respect of 17, Kashi Nath Mullick lane and it having constructed various buildings and structures, from time to time, the Corporation is entitled to assess the said buildings and structures in terms of the provisions of the Act. It has been pointed out that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official trustee, it would appear that the petitioner has constructed new buildings upon evicting tenants by filing Eviction Suits and, thus, the plea raised by the petitioner is a frivolous one. It has been pointed out that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official trustee, it would appear that the petitioner has constructed new buildings upon evicting tenants by filing Eviction Suits and, thus, the plea raised by the petitioner is a frivolous one. It is submitted that the petitioner being a lessee and having raised structure are entitled to pay rates and taxes and in support of the aforementioned contention reliance has been placed on M/s. United investment Corporation vs. Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1982 Cal. 388 . It has further been submitted that even an unauthorised structure would be subject matter of assessment as would appear from proviso to sub-section (5) of section 178 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Counsel points out that in terms of the provision of the said act, lands and buildings are the first charges against the consolidated rate and so long there is no separation of the lands and buildings, the same has to be assessed as a single unit and, thus, the petitioner cannot get any benefit there from. As regard the judgment of this court in saturday Club Ltd. (supra) it is submitted that the fact of the matter therein was different and, thus, the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the fact of this case as a precedent and in support of the aforementioned contention reliance has been placed on Jaya Sen vs. Sujit Kumar Sarkar, reported in AIR 1998 Cal. 288 . For the purpose of disposal of this case the provisions of sections 171, 174, 178 (2), 178 (5), 179, 180, 181 and 226 of the said Act are relevant and have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. THE fact that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is entitled in terms of the provision of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act to assess the annual valuation in respect of lands and buildings is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Chapter-3 of Part- IV of the said Act deals with taxation. Chapter-12 of the aforementioned part provides for the powers of taxation and consolidated rates. In terms of section 170, a Corporation is empowered to levy taxes inter alia being consolidated rates of lands and buildings. Thus, both lands and buildings jointly and separately can be subject matter of taxation at the hands of the respondents. 8. Chapter-12 of the aforementioned part provides for the powers of taxation and consolidated rates. In terms of section 170, a Corporation is empowered to levy taxes inter alia being consolidated rates of lands and buildings. Thus, both lands and buildings jointly and separately can be subject matter of taxation at the hands of the respondents. 8. AS by reason of such imposition a pecuniary burden is imposed all charges upon the subject matter are required to be imposed in clear and unambiguous language particularly in view of the fact that nonpayment of rates and taxes culminate in imposition of penalties. It is also a trite law that a taxing provision has to be interpreted fairly, reasonably and in consonance with justice. It is also well settled that there cannot be any 'intendment' in respect of taxing statute. But, it is also equally well settled that whereas charging section is to be constructed strictly, the machinery provision are not and when the intention of the legislature is clear, the Court would not hesitate in construing the machinery provision upon giving a common sense interpretation so that charging section does not fall. Section 170 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, empowers in no uncertain terms the Corporation to levy a consolidated rate both on lands and buildings. It does not make any distinction between an authorised building and unauthorised building. A building which has unauthorisedly been constructed in nonetheless a building and thus, would be subject to the levy of a consolidated rate fixed by the respondent-Corporation. The only difference between an authorised building and unauthorised is that whereas no other action as for example demolition of a building can not be taken recourse to in respect of on authorised building meaning thereby a building which was constructed in terms of a building plan sanctioned by the respondent but any building which is unauthorised and has been constructed without obtaining such plan in liable to be demolished. 9. SECTION 171 provides for mode and manner of fixation of annual valuation and the consolidated rate thereupon. A surcharge can also be levied. Different rates of levy have been prescribed depending upon the user of the building and the owner thereof. 10. 9. SECTION 171 provides for mode and manner of fixation of annual valuation and the consolidated rate thereupon. A surcharge can also be levied. Different rates of levy have been prescribed depending upon the user of the building and the owner thereof. 10. SECTION 174 of the said Act provides for the mode of determination of annual valuation which contains a non-obstante clause and creates legal fiction to the effect that annual valuation of any land or building so assessed shall be deemed to be the grass annual rent including service charges. Section 177 provides for determination of annual valuation of building where land is exempted from consolidated rate. Although framing of municipal assessment code is contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 178, the same has not yet been framed. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 178 read thus : "5. A newly constructed building shall become assessable from (the quarter following) the date of issue of the occupancy certificate under the Provisions of this Act : provided that is such building is occupied before the issue of the occupancy certificate in contravention of the provisions of this act, such building shall be liable for assessment from the (quarter following the) date of its occupation and notwithstanding any other action that may be taken under this Act, such, building shall not get the benefit of the rebate: in the consolidated rate under subsection (5) of section 171. 6. The Municipal Commission, shall upon an application made in this behalf by an owner, lessee or sub-lessee of occupier of any land or building and upon payment of such fees as may be determined by the Corporation by regulation furnish information to such person regarding the apportionment of the consolidated rate of such land or building among the several occupiers within such land or building for the current period or the period immediately preceding : provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the corporation from recovering the dues from any such person. " 11. THUS, there cannot be any doubt that even an unauthorised building can be subject to levy of rates and taxes. 12. MR. " 11. THUS, there cannot be any doubt that even an unauthorised building can be subject to levy of rates and taxes. 12. MR. Kapoor, the learned Counsel, submits that as sub-section (5) of section 178 refers to an occupancy certificate, such occupancy certificate has to be obtained in terms of the provision of such statute, but that does not make any difference as regard the power of levy of rates and taxes as such buildings. Section 179 refers to periodic assessment and section 180 refers to revision thereof. 13. SECTION 181 provides for an enabling provision empowering the municipal Commissioner to require the owner or occupier of any land or building or portion thereof to furnish a return in such form, in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by public notice. 14. SECTION 193 provides for incidence of consolidated rate on lands and buildings. Section 226 provides for recovery of consolidated rate on lands and buildings or any other tax or charges when owner of land or premises is unknown or ownership is disputed. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Saturday Club Limited vs. Calcutta municipal Corporation and Ors. (W. P. No. 279 of 1998) disposed of on 12th May, 1998 held : "section 193 being a charging provision in case of letting out or subletting, a person primarily liable is the lessor or the superior lessor, as the case may be. When a recovery proceeding is taken in respect of consolidated rate of land and building, recourse to section 195 of the said Act can only be taken. The CMC can also attach the rent under section 225 of the said Act. It is stated that there exists an agreement between the original owner and the appellant/writ petitioner herein to that effect that all rates and taxes shall be paid by it." 16. IT was further observed that when two contracting parties in unequivocal terms made agreement before Calcutta Municipal Corporation that the lessee is bound to pay the consolidated rates and taxes and or proportionately, the same may be enforced. While distinguishing the decision of this Court in M/s. United. Investment Corporation and Ors. vs. Corporation of India reported in AIR 1982 cal. While distinguishing the decision of this Court in M/s. United. Investment Corporation and Ors. vs. Corporation of India reported in AIR 1982 cal. 388 , it was observed that although a lessee who contracts the building may be the owner and, thus, a lessee cannot be made liable to pay in respect of the entire land and the building for which assessment has been made and thus a third person who has no statutorily liability cannot be made liable to pay rates and taxes except in the manner laid down therein. 17. THIS aspect of the matter has also been considered by a learned single Judge of this court in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. vs. CMC and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) CHN 508 . 18. IT is also relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court of which 1 was a member) in Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Abdul Halim gaznavi Molla and Ors. reported in 1990 (1) CWN 538, held : "a periodic assessment is to be made in terms of section 179 whereas section 180 provides for revision of assessment. Section 182a which provides for a non obstante clause imposes a liability on any owner or person to pay consolidated rate on the basis of self-assessment. Section 182 provides for submission of returns for purposes of revision in the annual valuation of lands and holdings. Section 184 provides for public notice and inspect of the assessment list. If any objection is filed as regard annual valuation of the land or building, the same is to be heard by a Hearing Officer in the manner provided for in terms of section 188 of the Act. Section 189 provides for an appeal. Chapter- XVI provides for payment and recovery which clearly shows that presentation of bill is sine qua non for imposing any interest of penalty." It was also observed that section 193 of the Act clearly states that the lessee would be liable for payment of taxes. Section 189 provides for an appeal. Chapter- XVI provides for payment and recovery which clearly shows that presentation of bill is sine qua non for imposing any interest of penalty." It was also observed that section 193 of the Act clearly states that the lessee would be liable for payment of taxes. As regard the liability of the occupier it has, however, observed : "keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that despite admission the petitioner had not paid the consolidated rate for a long time, in our opinion, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have exercised its discretion in favour of the writ petitioner, so far as the realisation of the amount of Rs. 11,63,349. 78p. is concerned. The amount of the annual valuation was known to them. They had been stalling payment of a huge amount for a long time. Their contention that they are not liable to pay any amount in view of the alleged illegalities committed in respect of 1973-74 is concerned, could not have been accepted." 19. THERE cannot, thus, be any doubt that section 193 fixes a liability upon the lessor and/or superior lessor both in relation to a tenancy or a sub-tenancy. However, whence a lessee comes in possession of the lands in question and constructs a building himself, he does not become a lessee in respect of such buildings and, thus, becomes liable for payment of consolidated rates and taxes. Furthermore in the instant case by reason of an agreement, the petitioner has made himself liable to pay consolidated rates and taxes and Mr. Kapoor states that the petitioner would be bound thereby. 20. THE contention which has to be considered is as to whether the parties are liable in respect of such portion of the building which, according to them, is not in their possession and had been built up unauthorisedly by trespasser. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of the decree passed in the aforementioned originating summons, the petitioner and she official trustee are liable to pay consolidated rates and taxes and to the extent of holding and half in respect of all the structures, existing on the date of passing decree. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of the decree passed in the aforementioned originating summons, the petitioner and she official trustee are liable to pay consolidated rates and taxes and to the extent of holding and half in respect of all the structures, existing on the date of passing decree. But the question remains as to whether they are liable also to pay rates and taxes for building which have been unauthorisedly constructed by third parties without obtaining any sanction from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The answer to this question must be rendered in negative as any other interpretation would lead to manifest injustice. However, the contention of Mr. Kapoor to the effect that in relation to an unauthorised building, no consolidated rates and taxes can be imposed at all by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is stated to be rejected. Apart from the fact that the Corporation is entitled to do so in terms of section 170 read with proviso appended to section 178 (5) of the Act such contention, if accepted, would result in absurdity. It is well known that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In terms of the provision of said Act, a person intending to construct a building is bound to obtain sanction in respect of the building plan submitted by him. An owner of a land is entitled to construct a building subject to the reasonable restriction imposed by a statute. 21. IF he fails and/or neglects to obtain such sanction and constructs a building, he does so at his own risk and peril. By such construction he not only makes himself liable to pay consolidated rates and taxes but in that case, the penal provisions shall also come into play. 22. IT is true as has been contended by Mr. Das Adhikary that both the petitioner and the official trustee are liable to pay rates and taxes in respect of such portion of land, viz. about 13 cottahs in respect whereof possession could not be delivered to the petitioner by the official trustee, but such agreement was confined only to land and/or the structures standing therein at the relevant time. While this Court cannot accept the extreme submission made by Mr. Kapoor to the effect that a person who makes an unauthorised construction is not liable to pay any tax at all, the other extreme contention by Mr. While this Court cannot accept the extreme submission made by Mr. Kapoor to the effect that a person who makes an unauthorised construction is not liable to pay any tax at all, the other extreme contention by Mr. Das Adhikary that the petitioner and the official trustee have been recorded as owner of the land, irrespective of the fact as to whether there had been any encroachment or any person having been in occupation thereof have constructed a building without having been any sanctioned building plan therefore the liability to pay consolidated rates and taxes would be fastened upon the person whose names appear in the Municipal Records cannot also be accepted. As noticed hereinbefore, a taxation statute must be construed fairly, reasonably and in consonance with justice. 23. CAN it be said that despite the provision of section 170 and the proviso appended to section 178 (5) the statutory liability to pay consolidated rates and taxes would he upon the recorded owner although they are neither in occupation, if upheld, would lead to an absurd and or unjust result. Although, the liability to pay consolidated rates and taxes under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is a statutory one keeping in view the fact that Mr. Das Adhikary himself has contended that even unauthorised construction can be subject matter of assessment of consolidated rates and taxes, in my opinion, upon taking recourse to the doctrine of purposive interpretation id must be held that even a recorded owner is not liable to pay consolidated rates and taxes in respect of such portion of land over which he is neither in occupation nor constructed any building unauthorisedly. However, the onus to prove the same would be upon him. In the facts the circumstances of this case, therefore, it must be held that neither the petitioner nor the official trustee would be responsible for any construction made on any land over which neither they are in possession nor have raised construction thereover. 24. THE decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 1996 (1) SCC 680 upon which Mr. 24. THE decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Trigon Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 1996 (1) SCC 680 upon which Mr. Das Adhikary relied upon, cannot be said to have any application in the fact situation of the present case inasmuch as therein the Apex Court was concerned with, the liability of the original owner where a transfer has taken place inasmuch as in respect of a transfer, provisions exist for intimation of such transfer. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case it must be held that Mr. Das Adhikary is correct in his submission that the petitioner had not been able to point out that any portion of 17, Kashi Nath Mullick lane is occupied by any thika tenant. Mr. Das Adhikary is also right in submitting that the petitioner and the official trustee had not been able to point out as to which portion of the land is under the occupation of trespassers/thika tenants and who are in an unauthorised occupation or have raised a 4 - storeyed building without obtaining any sanction of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The only statement which has been made is that such constructions have been made at the back portion of the old holding No. 17/1. 25. IN this view of the matter in the opinion of this Court interest of justice will be sub-served if the Hearting Officer considers the matter afresh only in relation to that plea of the petitioner and the official trustee and appoints and asks a surveyor to make an investigation and in the event the contention of the petitioner and the official trustee is found to be correct, make a separate assessment in respect of such unauthorised building, the liability whereof undoubtedly would be on the owner and or occupier of such building. It further goes without saying that in the event it is found that the building so constructed is an unauthorised one, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation would be entitled to take recourse to such proceeding for demolition thereof or for imposition of penalty in accordance with law. 26. THE submission of Mr. Kapoor to the effect that only because of an interim order was passed in the first writ application, the same by itself render the subsequent orders of assessment illegal cannot be upheld. 26. THE submission of Mr. Kapoor to the effect that only because of an interim order was passed in the first writ application, the same by itself render the subsequent orders of assessment illegal cannot be upheld. An order of injunction had been passed in relation to a particular order of assessment. The impugned notices had been sent and the impugned orders of assessment had been made under a different provisions and for different quarters. It is not disputed that a periodic assessment is permissible in law. Furthermore, in the instant case, a notice had been sent even to official trustee. Mr. Das Adhikary is correct that such a notice can be sent only at the address which is on records of the Calcutta Municipal corporation. The said notice had been delivered to the petitioner and if the petitioner had not informed the official trustee the respondents cannot be blamed therefor particularly when the admitted case is that the authorised representative of the petitioner in response to such notice appeared and took part in the proceedings. 27. IN Clarke and Ors. vs. Chadburn and Ors. reported in 1985 (1) AER 211, the Chancery Division it had merely been held that an act done in wilful disobedience of an injunction or court order was not only a contempt of court but also illegal and invalid, it has been held :. "if neither the litigant nor the Attorney General seeks to enforce the order, the Court will act of its own volition in punishing the contempt only in exceptional cases of clear contempts which cannot wait to be dealt with, cases in which, in the words of Lord Denning nr, it is urgent and imperative to act immediately' (See Balogh vs. Crown Court at St. Alban (1974)3 AER 283 at 288, (1975) QB 73 at 85, where, however, the facts were very different ). The present case, I may say does not seem to me to fall into this category. I should add that I speak only of disobedience to orders and not, for example of contempts committed in the fact of the Court. Whether this is a satisfactory state of the law is a mater of debate. The present case, I may say does not seem to me to fall into this category. I should add that I speak only of disobedience to orders and not, for example of contempts committed in the fact of the Court. Whether this is a satisfactory state of the law is a mater of debate. In cases where (as in this case) there are political overtones, if not more, there are obvious difficulties in requiring it to be the Attorney general who determines whether the public interest requires him to intervene for however strictly unpolitical a mind he brings to the decision, the opportunities for misrepresentation are almost unlimited. There seems to me to be a clear case for considering whether there should be some relaxation by the courts of their present restraint on themselves in enforcing their orders in cases where these are being openly flouted and the administration of justice is being brought into disrespect. For the courts to say, as they often say, that 'orders of the court must be obeyed becomes idle if there are daily instances of open and notorious disobedience remaining unpunished. If the courts became more ready to enforce order of their own motion, no doubt consideration should be given to the machinery by which this might be done. But 1 have to apply the law as it stands. " 28. THE said observations are in the nature of obiter. In any event, in the instant case no application has been filed for initiation of proceedings of contempt. Had such a proceeding been filed, the Court would have passed an order, upon taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, restoring the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction had not been violated. No such petition had been filed nor any such prayer had been made. In Krishna Kumar Shukla vs. Grindlays Bank P.L.C. and Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 899 , the Apex Court has clearly held that the question as to whether any consequential order would be passed will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. 29. IN Century Flow Mills Ltd. vs. S. Suppish and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Madras 270, the High Court was considering a question where an order of delivery 6f possession was effected in ignorance of the order of injunction passed by the Court. Such is not the position here. 30. 29. IN Century Flow Mills Ltd. vs. S. Suppish and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Madras 270, the High Court was considering a question where an order of delivery 6f possession was effected in ignorance of the order of injunction passed by the Court. Such is not the position here. 30. THE petitioner and the official trustee are bound to be assessed. The statutory authorities have only performed their statutory duties. It is one thing to say that their orders are right or wrong, legal or illegal but it is another thing to say that the entire order of assessment would be void only because in respect of an earlier period and that too in respect of only a portion of property, an order of injunction had been passed. The petitioner and the official trustee admit their liabilities except to the extent of construction made by trespassers on a portion of land. Even they admit their liability to pay consolidated rates and taxes in respect of the land over which they are not in possession. Thus, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has acted malafide or with a ill motive in passing the orders of assessment and, thus, wilfully disobeyed an interim order of this court. Before the directions of a statutory authority is declared as void on the ground that the same contravenes an interim order of injunction passed by this Court, it must clearly be held that such statutory authority is guilty of wilful disobedience thereof and, thus, has made himself liable to be punished there for. Considering in view the conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing the full facts before Hearing Officer as also before this court, they are directed to deposit 90% of the amount under demand upon taking into account any amount deposited by them, if any. Such deposit should be paid within 4 weeks from date. The petitioner and the official trustee shall further disclose better and further particulars about the person (s) who are said to be in illegal occupation of the land and has constructed the building unauthorisedly. Such information should be filed within two weeks from date, whereupon the Hearing Officer shall appoint a Surveyor, costs wherefor shall be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner and the official trustee shall further disclose better and further particulars about the person (s) who are said to be in illegal occupation of the land and has constructed the building unauthorisedly. Such information should be filed within two weeks from date, whereupon the Hearing Officer shall appoint a Surveyor, costs wherefor shall be borne by the petitioner. The hearing Officer shall proceed further upon obtaining the report made by the Surveyor and may make order or orders upon giving all concerned an opportunity of hearing. 31. THESE writ application are disposed of with the aforementioned directions and observations but in the facts and circumstances of this case the parties shall pay and bear their own costs. Writ Petitions disposed of.