Judgment :- (1.) THE six petitioners in this writ petition dated August 28, 2008 are aggrieved by orders made by the hearing officer of the corporation in the assessment proceedings initiated for determining annual values of the properties in question effective from the third quarter of 1973-74 upto the third quarter of 2003-04. (2.) ANNUAL values for the period were determined by the municipal commissioner, apparently, in terms of section 179 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. It is said that notices under section 184 were issued and the owner of the properties contested the proceedings before the hearing officer. (3.) THE case of the petitioners is this. Flats in the buildings constructed on the lands were purchased by them, and thereafter they submitted their respective applications seeking mutation of the assessment records of the corporation. The requisite mutation fees were paid by them on October 13, 2003. Keeping the applications pending, the corporation issued the section 184 notice dated December 23, 2003 with respect to determination of annual values effective from the third quarter of 1973-74. That notice was issued in the name of the erstwhile owner of the properties. Then the corporation issued the section 184 notice dated August 9, 2005 regarding determination of annual value effective from the third quarter of 2003-04. As a result, they did not get any opportunity to submit their objections to the proposed annual values, and to contest the matters before the hearing officer who was to adjudicate and determine the values. (4.) ACCORDING to Mr Ghosh, their counsel, the corporation acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. His contention is that the arbitrary action of the corporation resulted in deprivation of the petitioners right to contest the proceedings before the hearing officer. By referring me to the provisions in section 183 (5), Mr Ghosh, counsel for the corporation, submits that so long as the assessments records of the corporation were not mutated on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioners, there was no question of giving them any notice under section 184. His contention is that unless the determined property tax arrears are paid by the petitioners, there is no question of mutating the assessment records on the basis of their applications in connection wherewith the fees were paid on October 13, 2003. His contention is that unless the determined property tax arrears are paid by the petitioners, there is no question of mutating the assessment records on the basis of their applications in connection wherewith the fees were paid on October 13, 2003. The question therefore is whether at the relevant date the petitioners were liable to pay any determined property tax arrears. (5.) THEY submitted the mutation applications and deposited the requisite fees on October 13, 2003. At that date no assessment proceedings were pending and no determined property tax arrears existed. The proceedings were initiated first on December 23, 2003, and then on August 9, 2005 when the respective section 184 notices were issued. The determined amount of property tax arrears came into existence only sometime in 2006 when the hearing officer made the orders in the assessment proceedings. It is therefore evident that at the date the petitioners requested the corporation to act in terms of the provisions in section 183, they were not under any obligation to pay any determined property tax arrears. (6.) THEIR applications were not decided, they did not question the inaction as well. Though it is not to be said that they are entitled to get the assessment records mutated without paying the determined property tax arrears if the amounts are determined during pendency of their applications in my considered opinion, on the facts of the case, they were entitled to get reasonable opportunity to submit objections to the proposed annual values and to contest the assessment proceedings before the hearing officer. Their respective applications giving notice of transfer were pending before the corporation at the date the assessment proceedings were initiated. In my opinion, by not involving them in the assessment proceedings, the corporation did not act fairly. I therefore hold that the orders of the hearing officer should be quashed, and that the petitioners should be given reasonable opportunity to contest the proceedings. (7.) FOR these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. The orders made by the hearing officer of the corporation in the assessment proceedings initiated for determining annual values effective from the third quarter of 1973-74 to the third quarter of 2003-04 are hereby set aside. The petitioners will be at liberty to submit their respective objections to the section 184 notices concerned. The orders made by the hearing officer of the corporation in the assessment proceedings initiated for determining annual values effective from the third quarter of 1973-74 to the third quarter of 2003-04 are hereby set aside. The petitioners will be at liberty to submit their respective objections to the section 184 notices concerned. After the objections are filed, which, if any, should be filed by the petitioners within four weeks, the hearing officer shall give appropriate reasoned decisions after giving the petitioners and other persons who may be affected by the decisions, reasonable opportunity to present their respective cases. Once the annual values are determined by the hearing officer, the corporation shall take up the mutation applications for disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court is not directing the corporation to mutate the assessment records on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioners, if the determined property tax arrears are not paid by them. The reasoned decisions of the hearing officer shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately. If they remain aggrieved, they will be free to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum questioning the decisions. There shall be no order for costs. (8.) URGENT certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. Petition disposed of.