Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 218 (CAL)

Anjan Sinha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-05-02

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court : The petitioners in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 19, 2013 are seeking the following principal relief:- “a) Declaration do issue that the Respondent Municipal Authorities can not collect development fees for mutating the names of the petitioners in the assessment list which is contrary to the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal (Finance Accounting) Rules 1999.” Case of the petitioners, as argued by Mr Lahiri appearing for them, is as follows. They purchased a property. Then they submitted the requisite application for mutation. They obtained information contained in the document at p.37 of the WP that for mutation the Municipality realises a development fee. Rule 121 of the West Bengal Municipal (Finance and Accounting) Rules, 1999 does not permit realisation of any development fee. Mr Ghosh appearing for Guskara Municipality in Burdwan has submitted as follows. The document at p.37 of the WP will reveal that the Board of Councillors of the Municipality decided on November 14, 2008 to realise development fee for mutation. The petitioners did not pay it. The information contained in the document at p.37 of the W P were given by the Executive Officer of the Municipality on October 6, 2012. The relevant part of the information is quoted below:- “Mutation fee is charged as per Section 121 of the West Bengal Municipal (Finance & Accounting) Rule 1999 which has been amended by the B.O.C. of the Guskara Municipality in its meeting dated 14-11-2008.” As purchasers of the property the petitioners were under an obligation to give notice to the Municipality under sub-s.(1) of s.116 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. The Chairman of the Municipality was under a statutory obligation to decide the question of recording the transfer, on the basis of the notice, in the manner as prescribed. Rules were made for dealing with a notice of transfer given under s.116 of the Act. No provision of any law provides for realisation of any development fee. It is not known under what authority the Board of Councillors of the Municipality amended the rules. Nothing empowered it to adopt a resolution either to amend the provisions of r.121 or to impose development fee in addition to mutation fee payable under r.121. Admittedly, the Chairman of the Municipality has not yet given any decision in the matter. It is not known under what authority the Board of Councillors of the Municipality amended the rules. Nothing empowered it to adopt a resolution either to amend the provisions of r.121 or to impose development fee in addition to mutation fee payable under r.121. Admittedly, the Chairman of the Municipality has not yet given any decision in the matter. The petitioners have not been asked to pay development fee. I am, therefore, of the view that it is not a case for deciding the question whether the Municipality is entitled to ask the petitioners to pay development fee. The question is to be decided, in the first instance, by the Chairman of the Municipality under sub-s.(5) of s.116 of the Act read with r.121 of the rules. For these reasons, I dispose of the W P directing the Chairman of the Municipality to decide the petitioners’ mutation application, after hearing them, within a week from the date this order is served. No costs.