JUDGMENT 1. IN this writ petition, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (Intally Talkies Private limited and Arun Kumar Das, Director of Intally Talkies) respectively pray for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to recall and/or cancel the Notice of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation said to be pasted on the wall of the Cinema Hall (Annexure P-3) informing them that there was an outstanding dues of Rs. 84,49,916/- as on 19. 9. 2008 towards property tax and if the same was not immediately paid, the Corporation would take action in accordance with the K. M. C. Act. The petitioners also pray for a similar relief as against the Letter of Intimation dated 19. 9. 2008 issued to one Sanatan Nandy as contained in Annexure p-4 informing him that the aforementioned sum being Rs. 84,49,916/- was the outstanding dues. The petitioners also pray for an Order directing the respondents not to take a coercive steps against the petitioners in respect of the Thika Premises No. 2/3 B situated at Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, kolkata-14, pursuant to the aforementioned Letter of Intimation and Notice referred to above. 2. The facts, as gathered from the pleadings, is that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered Company registered under the Indian Companies act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 is one of its Directors. One Sanatan nandy and others were the owners of the land comprising of 11 Cottahs 9 chittacks 21 Square Feet on 2/3 B, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road and by a registered deed of lease dated 9. 5. 1931, Sanatan Nandy demised the said land in favour of one Harekrishna Das, the father of the petitioner no. 2 for a period of 21 years granting him permission for the construction of a building thereon. The said lease was subsequently extended for a further period of 25 years ending on 29. 2. 1980. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the basis of such permission granted by the Lessors, the father of the petitioner constructed, at his own cost, a Cinema Hall on the said land which came to be known as "intaliy Talkies" and thereafter, by an agreement executed by and between the heirs of Harekrishna Das, a Company came to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style of 'intally Talkies Pvt. Ltd. " (petitioner No. 1). It is the further case of the petitioners that since 1932 till today and even after the expiry of the lease on 28. 2. 1980, they are in possession of the premises and are carrying on their business of running the Cinema Hall under a valid Licence vide Annexure P-1. 3. IT is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2, aiong with the other heirs, were treated to be "thika" Tenants and they duly filed their Returns as such and the Controller, Calcutta Thika tenancy, by an Order dated 25. 8. 2008 (Annexure P-2), declared the petitioner No. 2 and his wife Smt. Puspa Rani Das as Thika Tenants in respect of the aforementioned premises situated at 2/3 B, Dr. Suresh sarkar Road, Kolkata on which the Cinema Hall is situated and which, according to the petitioner, vested in the State of West Bengal with effect from 18. 1. 1982 under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. 4. IT is also the case of the petitioners that in the Assessment records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the names of the erstwhile owners namely Sanatan Nandy and others has been shown as an owner of the Premises and therefore, Notices were issued. The petitioners have further stated that the petitioner No. 2 as well as his wife Smt. Puspa Das have now acquired all the shares of the petitioner No. 1 from the other legal heirs of Late Harekrishna Das and they are now therefore, the owners of the petitioner No. 1 Company. 5. ON 11. 11. 2008, they were surprised to find Notice pasted on the wall of the Cinema Hall informing them that there were arrears of taxes amounting to Rs. 84,49, 916/ -. This is one of the Notices (Annexure P-3) which is impugned in this writ petition. According to the petitioners, the notice is on the basis of the impugned Letter of Intimation dated 19. 9. 2008 (Annexure P-4). 6. 84,49, 916/ -. This is one of the Notices (Annexure P-3) which is impugned in this writ petition. According to the petitioners, the notice is on the basis of the impugned Letter of Intimation dated 19. 9. 2008 (Annexure P-4). 6. THE petitioners have further stated that upon enquiries being made in the Office of the K. M. C., they came to be learn that the Municipal authorities had revised the annual value of the premises in question in the same manner as is done to usual premises ignoring the fact that the premises in question was a Thika Tenancy of which the petitioners were thika Tenants and therefore, the annual valuation and/or arrears referred to and/or intimated, was totally illegal. They have also stated that the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 65,831. 14 to the K. M. C. towards arrears of taxes but this has not been adjusted. It is the further case of the petitioners that the evaluation and/or re-evaluation of the premises in question has been done without giving any Notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, the same is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice and is also mechanical inasmuch as the premises, being a Thika Tenancy, is required to be assessed, not under section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation but under Section 175 as it stood upto the date of its deletion. The petitioners have then stated that they made an application on 26. 11. 2008 in the shape of a letter vide Annexure P-6 wherein inter alia prayed before the Commissioner of K. M. C. that the Municipal assessment book be amended by decreasing the annual value and cancelling the assessments by declaring the premises as a Thika Tenancy as the same was erroneously valued without considering that the property was a Thika Property. 7. THE petitioners have further stated that even during the pendency of the representation, a representative of the respondents visited the office of the petitioners and demanded payments together with interest and penalty without making any adjustments of the payments already made and although the petitioners and/or their representatives met the respondent No. 3 (the Chief Manager Revenue) and showed him all the original paid bills, yet nothing was done and no decision has been communicated to the petitioners till date. 8. 8. ON the basis of the aforementioned set of facts, the petitioners submit that the respondents cannot be allowed to proceed to recover taxes from the petitioners on the basis of an exparte Order without prior Notice and without deciding the representation of the petitioners. They further submit that the petitioner had also demanded justice by their letter dated 29. 11. 2008 (Annexure P-7) which has not been attended to. Let it be recorded that Mr. A. K. Das Adhikary, learned Counsel appearing for the K. M. C. had raised two preliminary objections and which were:- (i) That the letter of intimation dated 19. 9. 2008 was addressed to one Sanatan Nandy and therefore, the writ petition, at the instance of either the Intally Talkies or Arun Kumar Das, was not maintainable. (ii) That the petitioners had earlier filed two writ petitions and therefore, this third writ petition was barred. 9. HOWEVER, in reply to both the contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners had stated that since the Letter of Intimation had been issued to Sanatan Nandy, it was all the more necessary for the respondents to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so that they could have explained the facts relating to the lease of the premises in question executed by Sanatan Nandy and another. He further submits that in any event, the respondents cannot be allowed to take such a plea as they have themselves pasted the Notice on the wall of the Cinema Hall of which the petitioner No. 2 for facts stated above, is now an absolute owner of the building in question and is also Thika Tenant. 10. THE aforementioned answer of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in respect of the first objection appears to be a reasonable answer and therefore, the first objection/preliminary point raised by Mr. A. K. Das Adhikary is not acceptable to this Court. So far as the second objection is concerned, the same relates to an objection that the petitioners had filed two earlier writ petitions. 11. IN answer and on 14. 1. 2009, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from Mr. Suman Dey, Advocate-on-Record, had stated that those two writ petitions were totally different and had no bearing nor any nexus with the present writ petition. 11. IN answer and on 14. 1. 2009, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from Mr. Suman Dey, Advocate-on-Record, had stated that those two writ petitions were totally different and had no bearing nor any nexus with the present writ petition. This Court had therefore directed the petitioners to file an affidavit stating as to what was the subject-matter of those two writ petitions and had also directed them to include photocopies of any Orders that may have been passed therein along with photocopies of the writ petitions themselves. Thereafter, an affidavit dated 27th January, 2009 was filed. 12. IN the said affidavit, the petitioners have stated that the cause of action in the first writ petition being W. P. No. 7863 (W) of 2007 was against the non-supply of a copy of an Order dated 8. 12. 2005 passed by the Hearing officer VIII fixing the annual value of the premises in question. A copy of that writ petition has been brought on record vide Annexure P-1 therein and upon a perusal of prayer a thereto, it is evident that the petitioners had made a prayer for a Direction upon the K. M. C. to serve copy of the Order dated 8. 12. 2005 by which they had proceeded to fix the annual value of the premises at Rs. 3,98,160/- with effect from the 4th Quarter of 2001-02. That writ petition was Disposed of on 17. 5. 2007 vide Annexure-P-2 appended to the said affidavit by another Hon'ble Single Judge only because Mr. A. K. Das Adhikary appearing for the K. M. C. had furnished and served an authenticated copy of the Order dated 8. 12. 2005 upon the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners who had accepted the same and on that basis, the Hon'ble Single Judge observed that no further Order needed to be passed on that writ petition and accordingly, Disposed of the same. 13. SO far as the second writ petition is concerned, it has been stated that when they received the aforementioned Order dated 8. 12. 2005 by which the Hearing Officer had fixed the annual value at Rs. 3,98,160/-with effect from the 4th Quarter of 2001-02, they then filed the second writ petition against the said Order and that writ petition was registered as w. P. No. 17897 (W) of 2007. 12. 2005 by which the Hearing Officer had fixed the annual value at Rs. 3,98,160/-with effect from the 4th Quarter of 2001-02, they then filed the second writ petition against the said Order and that writ petition was registered as w. P. No. 17897 (W) of 2007. A Copy of the said writ petition has been brought on record in the said affidavit vide Annexure P-3 and upon a perusal thereof, it appears that the same was directed against the Order dated 8. 12. 2005. Thus, upon a perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the two writ petitions were totally different and had nothing to do with the instant case. Consequently, both the preliminary objections raised by the Mr. A. K. Das Adhikary are rejected. 14. IN the present writ petition, the petitioners are claiming to be thika Tenants and it appears that they were declared as such by an Order dated 25. 8. 2008 vide Annexure P-2 appended to this writ petition but with effect from 18. 1. 1982. It is further evident that in spite of so many facts and specially in spite of a specific representation having been brought on record on 26. 11,2008 vide Annexure P-6 and also in spite of a Letter demanding justice dated 29. 11. 2008 (Annexure P-7), the respondents have not yet decided the matter and issued the Notice of Intimation to Sanatan nandy who, from the facts pleaded, had demised the premises in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner No. 2 way back on 9. 5. 1931. Under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and regulation) Act, 2001, it is evident, upon a perusal of Section 4 thereof, that w. e. f. 18. 1. 1982, the lands enumerated therein shall be deemed to have vested in the State free from all encumbrances. 15. UNDER the provisions of Section 178 (2) (v) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, 1980, every land comprised in a Thika Tenancy with a hut or building thereon either in a basti or otherwise, shall be assessed separately as a single unit. 16. IT is evident, from reading the Order dated 25. 8. 15. UNDER the provisions of Section 178 (2) (v) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, 1980, every land comprised in a Thika Tenancy with a hut or building thereon either in a basti or otherwise, shall be assessed separately as a single unit. 16. IT is evident, from reading the Order dated 25. 8. 2008 as contained in Annexure P-2 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 32 of 2007 by the Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, that the applicants therein were narnita Das, Provat Das, Prasanta Kumar Das and Arun Kumar Das who is the petitioner No. 2 in this writ petition. It is further evident from the operative portion of the Order passed by the Controller that these applicants were declared to be Thika Tenants and the petitioner No. 2 was so declared in respect of 990/1000th portion and his wife, Puspa Rani das, in respect of 1/100th portion of the premises in question. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also evident that under the provisions of Section 193 (4) of the K. M. C. Act 1980, the property tax in respect of a Thika Tenancy shall be primarily leviable upon a Thika Tenant and not on the original landlord such as Sanatan Nandy. 17. This Court also notices that Section 175 of the K. M. C. Act had dealt with the procedure to be adopted for fixing the annual value in respect of Thika Tenancies. This provision was however deleted w. e. f. 1. 5. 2007. The petitioner No. 2 has been declared as a Thika Tenant by reason of the Order dated 25. 8. 2008 referred to above w. e. f. 18. 1. 1982. Therefore, in terms of the said Order read with Section 4 of the Thika Tenancy Act, the premises in question will be deemed to have vested free from all encumbrances in the State w. e. f. 18. 1. 1982. Thus, at least from 18. 1. 1982 to 1. 5. 2007 (the date of deletion of Section 175), the authorities should have proceeded under the provisions of Section 175 of the K. M. C. Act as it then stood and it is only after 1. 5. 2007 that the procedure laid down under Section 174 could have been resorted to and which deals with the determination of annual valuation of lands. 18. IN the face of the Order of the Controller, the arguments of Mr. 5. 2007 that the procedure laid down under Section 174 could have been resorted to and which deals with the determination of annual valuation of lands. 18. IN the face of the Order of the Controller, the arguments of Mr. Das Adhikary to the effect that a huge liability cannot be avoided, does not appear to be reasonable to this Court. His further contention is that there is a hopeless delay in filing this writ petition. He states that since 1931, the petitioners never claimed to be Thika Tenants. This submission also does not appeal to this Court because the Order declaring them to be Thika Tenants came only on 25. 8. 2008 which was passed by the Controller. In any event, nothing has been brought on record to show that the K. M. C. has preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Thika Tenancy Act against the Order of the Controller. Mr. Das Adhikary then submitted that the statements made in paragraph-13 of the writ petition is falsified by Ground No. XXIII at Page 73 of the affidavit dated 27th January, 2009 which is the photocopy of the 2nd writ petition being W. P. No. 17897 (W) of 2007. This submission is also not acceptable to this Court because Ground No. XXIII of W. P. No. 17897 (W) of 2007 was in the context of the Order dated 8. 12. 2005 and not in the context of the submissions made in this writ petition. This submission of Mr. Das Adhikari is also therefore rejected. 19. MR. Das Adhikary then submitted that in the letter/representation dated 26. 11. 2008, the petitioners have referred to a number of proceedings inter se between the parties who are not before this Court. Such a submission is also not acceptable to this Court because all that the petitioners want, is a re-determination on the basis of the Order passed by the Controller on 25. 8. 2008 which has now attained finality. 20. FOR all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that this writ petition must succeed. It is accordingly allowed to do so. The Notice as contained in Annexure P-3 and the Letter of intimation as contained in Annexure P-4 are both set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 21. 2008 which has now attained finality. 20. FOR all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that this writ petition must succeed. It is accordingly allowed to do so. The Notice as contained in Annexure P-3 and the Letter of intimation as contained in Annexure P-4 are both set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 21. THE matter is remanded to the K. M. C. to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to all other concerned persons. An Order must be passed by assigning reasons and such an Order should be passed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Communication thereof must be made to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter. All observations made in this writ petition must be dealt with by the respondents after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons including the petitioners. 22. No Order as to costs. Upon appropriate application (s) being made, urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions. Later- After the aforementioned judgment was pronounced in Court, Mr. A. K. Das Adhikary prayed for stay for a limited period so that he can prefer an appeal. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any reason to stay the judgment. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is refused.