JUDGMENT SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI 1. THE present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata in M.A.A. (Municipal Assessment Appeal) 2824 of 2005 in respect of premises no. 79, Kalitala Road, Ward No. 106 effect from 2/1995-96 and in CO no. 4270 of 2007 the period was with effect from 2/2001-02. Since both the matters were decided by the aforesaid common judgment, both the revisional applications were taken up together for consideration and disposal for the sake of convenience. 2. THE petitioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation has contended that the opposite party is the owner of premises no. 79, Kalitala Road, Kolkata 700 106 having assessee no. 31-106-05-0079-8. By issuing notice under Section 184(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the Corporation proposed to enhance the annual valuation of the aforesaid holding at Rs. 5,000/- with effect from 2/1995-96 which was opposed by the opposite party. THE Hearing Officer of the KMC then determined the annual valuation at Rs. 4,200/- by order dated 18.05.2005 on contest for the said quarter. Similarly, in CO 4270 of 2007 it is further contended that the similar notice under Section 184(3)(4) was issued proposing the annual valuation at Rs.15,250/- with effect from 2/2001-02 which was opposed by the opposite party. THE Hearing Officer then determined such valuation at Rs. 11,700/- by order dated 18.05.2005 on contest. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such composite order dated 18.05.2005 passed by the Hearing Officer the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata which were registered separately as M.A.A. 2824 of 2005 and 2825 of 2005. After hearing both the parties by a common judgment the learned Tribunal has reduced annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 1,980/- with effect from 2/1995-96 and at the rate of Rs. 7,300/- with effect from 2/2001-02 by order dated 19th April, 2007 on contest which is now under assail. 3. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the Corporation has now preferred this revisional application contending, inter alia, that the assessment made by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. 3. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the Corporation has now preferred this revisional application contending, inter alia, that the assessment made by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. The holding comprises of building and vacant land the valuation of which should be separately assessed as per prescribed rule which has not been followed in the instant case. The learned Tribunal has assessed the rate of 0.5 paisa per square feet for the constructed portion of the holding without any basis in terms of Section 174 of the Act. In fact reasonable expected rent will have to be enhanced in the prescribed manner which is mandatory in nature and as such the said findings of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 4. THE opposite party on the contrary has contended that against the assessment of the Hearing Officer the above appeal was preferred by the Corporation and the learned tribunal has already reduced the rate to a considerable extent. The assessee has also accepted the enhanced rate. Therefore, the corporation has no locus standi to approach this Hon’ble Court challenging the legality and propriety of the findings of the learned Tribunal. In enhancing the rent for constructed area of the holding the learned Tribunal has rightly taken note of the location and area and accordingly fixed a rate of Rs. 6,426/- at the rate of 0.50 paisa. Such an assessment by the learned Tribunal is quite consistent with the provisions of Section 180(2) of the Act and as such the same should not be interfered with. Learned Lawyer for the petitioner has, however, contended that the provisions of Section 180 of the Act relates to assessment during intervening period due to change of circumstances but the periodical assessment of a holding at regular intervals will be conducted and decided under the provisions of Section 179 of the Act which relates to periodic assessment of general valuation. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions so made by the learned Advocate for both the parities and perused the impugned composite order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. LEARNED Lawyer for the opposite party has contended that since the opposite party has already accepted the revised reduced assessment no appeal shall lie against such order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions so made by the learned Advocate for both the parities and perused the impugned composite order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. LEARNED Lawyer for the opposite party has contended that since the opposite party has already accepted the revised reduced assessment no appeal shall lie against such order. But I hold that unilateral acceptance of the verdict by one party cannot forfeit right of the other party to question legality and propriety of such decision before appropriate authority since this is a substantive right. The instant revisional application has been preferred by the Corporation because on account of such reduced assessment they will sustain loss of revenue which has large impact upon similar assessment at reduced rate by the Appellate authority without observing the parameters laid down in the statute. Since similar appeal was entertained by this Hon’ble Court in the unreported case being C.O. No. 2438 of 2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution and since the said order of this Hon’ble Court dated 10.03.2004 has not been challenged before any higher forum by the petitioner and thereby has reached its finality, I hold that the instant application is maintainable before the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court being the alternative forum for remedy in addition to the provisions of review laid down in sub- Section 10A of Section 189 of the Act. 7. IT appears that the learned Tribunal has observed that admittedly the appellant raised construction over an area of 1,190 square feet in the aforesaid holding with effect from 2/1995-96 and there still remains about 2 cottahs of vacant land. IT is also admitted position that during 2/1989-90 KMC assessed the annual valuation at Rs. 1,800/-. Since there was no change of nature and character of the said land till 2/1995-96, the learned Tribunal held that during the period the annual valuation should be reasonably enhanced by 10% which should be Rs. 1,800/- + 10% = Rs. 1,980/-. Similarly, considering the location and area of the premises the learned Tribunal has fixed the rate at 0.50 paisa per square feet per month for the constructed portion and thus the annual valuation of the constructed portion was assessed at Rs. 6,426/- and the annual valuation of the vacant land for about 2 cottahs was assessed at 874/-. Thus the total annual valuation of the premises was assessed at Rs. 6,426/- and the annual valuation of the vacant land for about 2 cottahs was assessed at 874/-. Thus the total annual valuation of the premises was assessed at Rs. 7,300/-. In view of above circumstances the learned Tribunal allowed both the appeals being no. 2824 and 2825 of 2005 in appeal on contest without cost and modified the order of the Hearing Officer assessing the annual valuation of the aforesaid premises at Rs. 1,980/- and Rs. 7,300/- with effect from 2/1995-96 and 2/2001-02 respectively. 8. IT appears from the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal that they have assessed the annual valuation of the constructed portion at the rate of Rs. 0.50 per square feet but no cogent reason has been assigned why the amount will be calculated at such rate. Since the same Tribunal while disposing of M.A.A. no. 2169 of 2003 in respect of premises no. 3, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata 700 047 fixed such valuation at the rate of Rs. 0.80 per square feet, such a finding obviously not based on the prevailing construction cost of a building per square feet in urban area at the material time. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the annual valuation of the vacant land by 10 per cent of the previous valuation without any objective satisfaction. No reason has been assigned why 10 percent rate will be treated as reasonable for the purpose of periodical enhancement of the rent. Sub-Section (2) of Section 180 of the Act provides that the Municipal Commissioner may cause any revision to be made in the annual valuation of any land or building without the nature of its use being changed or when a new building is erected or an existing building is developed or substantially altered or improved during the period the annual valuation remains in force. Such revision will be applicable and shall remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period during which but for such valuation annual valuation would have remained in force as provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 180 of the Act. Such revision will be applicable and shall remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period during which but for such valuation annual valuation would have remained in force as provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 180 of the Act. As regards periodical assessment it is provided in Clause (c) of sub-Section 2 of Section 179 of the Act that the annual valuation under Chapter XII of the Act shall subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, remained in force in respect of each Ward of the Corporation for a period of five years from the date of publication of scheme, irrespective of any alteration during such period in the number or boundaries of such Ward. Since by raising construction there has been change of nature of the use of the property the revision shall have to be made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the aforesaid provisions in respect of the periods specified therein. 9. FOR the purpose of objective satisfaction specific provision made in Clause (m) of sub-Section 1 of Section 174 of the Act which is quoted below:- "174. Determination of annual valuation. - (1)(m) The Municipal Valuation Committee shall also recommend to the Corporation the multiplicative factors for increasing or decreasing or for not increasing or decreasing the base unit area values for covered space or land comprising building or any vacant land within each category specified in clause (k) taking into consideration the parameters of type of location, use, age, structure and occupancy status and such alter relevant factors of such land, land-including any building or buildings, as the case may be, as the Municipal Valuation Committee considers necessary along with a point scale assigned for each parameter to be determined, by the Municipal Valuation Committee, subject to a lower limit of 0.5 and upper limit of 8.0 in the said point scale for the purpose of deriving at the final base unit area value of such land, land including any building or buildings." 10. IN the findings of the learned Tribunal there is no mention of any such point of scale fixed by the Municipal Valuation Committee subject to lower and upper limits for the purpose of deriving at the final base unit area value of such land, land including any building or buildings, as the case may be. IN the findings of the learned Tribunal there is no mention of any such point of scale fixed by the Municipal Valuation Committee subject to lower and upper limits for the purpose of deriving at the final base unit area value of such land, land including any building or buildings, as the case may be. Learned Lawyer for the appellant has drawn my attention to one unreported case of this Hon’ble Court taken in C.O. No. 2438 of 2002. It appears from the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 10.03.2004 passed therein that the Municipal Assessment tribunal in the aforesaid case enhanced 10 per cent of the valuation of a building though after amalgamation the said building retained in its own character. The said finding was set aside on the grounds that such enhancement was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal having no parameters behind it sanctioned by law. In the present case also I hold that the said principle will be applicable for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Clause (m) of sub-Section 1 of Section 174 of the Act. 11. IN the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs and Ors. Versus - Govind Joti Chavare and Ors., reported in (1975)1 SCC 559 it has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Relying upon the above principles I hold that the order of the learned tribunal without objective satisfaction and assessment of various parameters is not sustainable in law and as such the same is set aside relating to M.A.A. no. 2824 and 2825 of 2005. Both the revisional applications are thus disposed of.