Judgment The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.05 of the concerned Hearing Officer, appointed under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act), whereby annual valuation of premises no. 20, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Kolkata (hereafter the said premises) has been assessed at Rs. 2,88,580/- w.e.f. 3rd quarter of 1988-89, at Rs. 3,27,430/- w.e.f. 3rd quarter of 1994-95 and at Rs. 3,96,790/- w.e.f. 3rd quarter of 2000-01. The sole ground on which such assessment has been challenged is that the petitioners were not put on notice and, therefore, had no opportunity to raise their objection in respect of the proposed valuation. How far the claim of the petitioners is justified would necessitate this Court to note certain background facts as are evident from the petition and a registered sale deed, copy whereof was handed over to Court in course of hearing by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is claimed by the petitioners that by a deed of sale executed on 20.09.02, they purchased the said premises from the owner Todi Investments Limited (hereafter the vendor) of P-15, India Exchange Place Extension, Kolkata. The deed was registered on 19.12.06. Bank of Baroda, having its Eastern Regional Office housed in the said premises, is a lessee thereof since 1.1.96 by virtue of a lease deed dated 24.12.96 executed by and between it and the vendor. Since the said premises falls within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation) and is assessed by it (Assessee No. 11-017-30-0063-0), all notices and tax bills were and are still being addressed to the vendor at P-15, India Exchange Place Extension, Kolkata. By a letter dated 3.3.05, one Din Dayal Agarwal, Advocate, acting on behalf of the petitioners, while informing the Assessor Collector (North) of the Corporation that the said premises had been rented to the Bank of Baroda which had been paying Corporation taxes, made a request to record change of mailing address in terms of desire of his clients as indicated therein with a further request to confirm change of mailing address in respect of the said premises in the Corporation records. This letter, it is claimed by the petitioners, was followed by a reminder dated 4.5.05 issued by the said Advocate, addressed to the said Assessor Collector, and purportedly sent under Certificate of Posting. This letter, it is claimed by the petitioners, was followed by a reminder dated 4.5.05 issued by the said Advocate, addressed to the said Assessor Collector, and purportedly sent under Certificate of Posting. It was recorded therein that his clients (the petitioners) had not received any tax bill or correspondence since the mailing address had not been changed in the Corporation records in terms of the earlier request. In this letter, it was disclosed that the petitioners had purchased the said premises and registration of the deed, which had already been presented before the Registrar of Assurances, was pending. Copy of IGR dated 29.10.02 and photocopy of the conveyance deed purportedly were enclosed therewith to enable the Corporation to send the tax bills/correspondence to the mailing address in respect whereof change was sought for. This reminder was followed by silence on the part of the petitioners for little less than two years when the petitioner no.1, by his letter dated 20.3.07, demanded justice from the Corporation in respect of ex-parte assessment of valuation of the said premises. It was alleged therein that no notice under Section 186 of the Act had been received and as such no objection thereunder could be filed. A request was made to rescind/cancel the illegal and arbitrary assessment. Such an attempt having proved abortive, the present petition was filed by the petitioners. Elaborate submissions have been advanced by Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the petitioners in respect of failure and/or neglect of the Corporation to amend its records by inserting the changed mailing address as prayed for on their behalf by the said Advocate. It is his contention that by such failure or neglect, the Corporation has abridged the petitioners’ rights as guaranteed under the Act to object against the proposed valuation to their utter detriment and prejudice. He laid stress on the definition of ‘owner’ in the Act to urge that the petitioners being the persons responsible for payment of property tax, they had a right of audience before valuation of the said premises was finally assessed by the concerned Hearing Officer. The valuation of the said premises having been assessed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned valuation with a direction to reassess the valuation upon complying with the provisions of the Act. The valuation of the said premises having been assessed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned valuation with a direction to reassess the valuation upon complying with the provisions of the Act. It is not considered necessary to deal with each and every argument advanced by Mr. Ghosh, for, this Court is broadly in agreement with him that if the Corporation has been duly informed of transfer of any land or building liable to be taxed, it would be its duty to send notice to the owner/person liable to pay the consolidated rate in respect thereof. Also, even if there be no transfer, if the assessee desires that notice/correspondence be despatched to a new address instead of the one recorded with the Corporation, it would be under a similar duty to act on the basis of the request and send notice/correspondence to the mailing address as sought for by the assessee. However, the issue here is whether the petitioners had duly informed the Corporation of transfer of the said premises in their favour by the vendor prior to 11.7.05, i.e. the date of the order of assessment and were thus justified in claiming change in the mailing address. Though the Act does not envisage change of mailing address in circumstances as sought for by the petitioners it cannot be doubted that if proper information of transfer had been laid before the Corporation, the contention of Mr. Ghosh definitely would have to be upheld. But the facts as presented, for reasons discussed hereafter, do not warrant interdiction by the Court of Writ. By letter dated 3.3.05, the petitioners’ Advocate did not inform the Assessor Collector the basis for the request made therein. The letter only contained the desire of the petitioners that the mailing address ought to be changed. The Corporation was not informed of the status of the petitioners, who remained rank outsiders to it. So long the petitioners did not lay information before the Corporation that there had been a transfer as a consequence of which they became ‘owners’ of the said premises, as is contemplated in Section 183 of the Act, and therefore liable to pay tax, the Corporation despite receipt thereof had no legal duty to accede to their request. So long the petitioners did not lay information before the Corporation that there had been a transfer as a consequence of which they became ‘owners’ of the said premises, as is contemplated in Section 183 of the Act, and therefore liable to pay tax, the Corporation despite receipt thereof had no legal duty to accede to their request. The reminder letter of 4.5.05 of the petitioners’ Advocate disclosed for the first time the factum of transfer. If the petitioners could establish service of this letter together with its enclosures on the Corporation, they could have achieved the relief sought for here in this petition. Unfortunately, service of this letter has not been established. It has been pleaded in the petition that this letter was sent under Certificate of Posting. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Corporation, however, emphatically denied receipt of this letter by the addressee. The ‘certificate of posting’ of the reminder letter dated 4.5.05 of the petitioners’ Advocate is Annexure P-3 to the petition. It is evident therefrom that some letter had been posted on 4.5.05 itself at about 17 hrs., addressed to the Assessor Collector (North) of the Corporation. However, it also manifests that the senders of the letter posted, for which the said certificate had been granted, are the petitioners and not their Advocate whose letter dated 4.5.05 they claim had been posted and for which the said certificate was issued. In such circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to hold that Annexure P-3 to the petition is referable to the letter dated 4.5.05 of the Advocate and not to any other letter of the petitioners posted on the same day for which the certificate had been issued by the concerned post office. This Court is thus unable to place any reliance on Annexure P-3. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs. Rashid B. Mulani reported in 2006 (1) S.C.C. 407 has sounded a note of caution in respect of ‘Certificate of Posting’ obtained by a sender of a letter. It has been observed therein as follows: “A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the post office. It has been observed therein as follows: “A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the post office. But when a mere certificate of posting is sought, no record is maintained by the post office either about the receipt of the letter or the certificate issued. The ease with which such certificate can be procured by affixing ante-dated seal with the connivance of any employee of the post office is a matter of concern. The Department of Posts may have to evolve some procedure whereby a record in regard to issuance of the certificate is regularly maintained showing a serial number, date, sender’s name and addressee’s name to avoid misuse. In absence of such a record, a certificate of posting may be of very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communication is disputed or denied as in this case”. Keeping in view the above observations too, this Court is loath to attach any importance to the certificate of posting being Annexure P-3 to the petition. There is one other reason for which this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Corporation had due notice of the transfer. The vendor has not been arrayed as a respondent in the petition. As such its version in respect of information given to the Corporation regarding transfer of the said premises as transferor, if any, which was its obligation under the Act, could not be elicited. At least, nothing is manifest from the petition in this behalf. It has been rightly contended by Mr. Chakraborty by relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1579 : Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs M/s. Trigon Investment and Trading Private Limited that the Act does not contemplate the Corporation going about enquiring whether and when a particular land/building has been transferred and to whom. It has been rightly contended by Mr. Chakraborty by relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1579 : Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs M/s. Trigon Investment and Trading Private Limited that the Act does not contemplate the Corporation going about enquiring whether and when a particular land/building has been transferred and to whom. This Court, thus, would hold that prior to assessment of valuation of the said premises on 11.7.05, the petitioners or the vendor had not duly informed to the Corporation transfer of the said premises and, therefore, for non-service of notice on the petitioners and deprivation of the right to object against the proposed valuation, they themselves are to blame. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed but without any order for costs. Dismissal of this writ petition shall, however, not affect the petitioners’ rights to prefer appeal against the impugned order of the Hearing Officer before the Assessment Tribunal in accordance with law on points not covered by this order. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant within 3 days from date of putting in requisites therefor.