Judgment :- (1). THE petitioners in this writ petition dated March 3rd, 2008 are questioning three hearing notices and three rate cards issued by the Chief manager (Revenue) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. (2). THE notices and the rate cards were issued in connection with revision of annual value of the premises mentioned in them effective from the third quarter of 1990-91, the third quarter of 1996-97 and the third quarter of 2002-03. The hearing notices were given in terms of the provisions of S. 184 of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The hearing officer concerned determined the revised annual values effective from the respective quarters by orders made on November 26th, 2007. Although against the orders of the hearing officer the petitioners were entitled to lodge appeals before the tribunal under S. 189, there is nothing to show that they preferred any appeal. Once the revised annual values determined by the hearing officer became final annual values in terms of the provisions of S. 190, the competent authority of the corporation issued the rate cards demanding payable property tax. (3). THE case of the petitioners is that taking advantage of a waiver scheme floated by the corporation in 2004 they paid property tax arrears payable for all the quarters falling between the year 1966 and the third quarter of 2003, and hence there was no scope for any revision of the annual value in terms of S. 179 effective from the quarters mentioned in the S. 184 noticeS. The question therefore is whether anything in the waiver scheme divested the corporation and its authorities of the power to initiate proceedings for revision of the annual value, in terms of the provisions of S. 179, effective from the three quarters for which the hearing notices were given. (4). IT is not the case that the hearing notices were issued without proposing the revised annual values in terms of S. 179. Under this section the municipal commissioner is empowered to revise the annual value of a premises periodically. Once the revised annual values effective from the three quarters mentioned in the hearing notices were proposed, notified and entered in the assessment list, the hearing notices under S. 184 were issued giving opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections, if any. The hearing officer was to consider the objections and determine the revised annual values in terms of S. 188. The hearing officer was to consider the objections and determine the revised annual values in terms of S. 188. It is apparent from the rate cards that the hearing officer concerned made the final orders in the three proceedings on November 26th, 2007. The revised annual values, in the absence of any appeal under S. 189, became the final annual valuations within the meaning of S. 190, and as such they were apparently entered in the municipal assessment book in terms of S. 191. It is only thereafter that the rate cards were issued demanding the balance of the property tax payable for the premises for the three quarters in question. (5). THE waiver scheme was floated for giving an opportunity to the assessees to pay back property tax, taking available benefits on account of interest and penalty, payable on the basis of the annual values determined from time to time. In the present case, at the date the scheme was floated, the petitioners were paying property tax on the basis of the unrevised annual value, since it was not revised, though the revisions had become due as from the third quarter of 1990 91. Once the annual values effective from that and the other subsequent quarters were revised and determined, the petitioners became liable to pay only the balance of the property tax payable for the periods by them. It is therefore evident that in view of revision and determination of the annual values effective from the three quarters in question they were not required or called upon to pay property tax for the same quarters twice over. The waiver scheme by no means divested the corporation of its rights and powers to propose revision of the annual value of the premises in terms of the provisions of S. 179. Exactly that was done by the corporation, and thereupon the hearing notices were issued. It is therefore clear that the petitioners took out this writ petition on an entirely wrong premise that because of the waiver scheme benefits given to them, the corporation was not empowered to revise the annual value of the premises effective from the three quarters in question. (6). FOR these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for cost.