Judgment : The petitioner No.1, namely, M/s. Concept Ventrues Pvt. Ltd. became the owner of the entire 15th floor, measuring about 9069 sq. ft. at Om Tower, 32 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-700071, (hereinafter referred to as the said property) by virtue of the terms of settlement filed in CS 472 of 1998 which formed part of the compromise decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court. After being declared as owner of the said property the petitioner No.1 took over the possession of the said property from the erstwhile six owners thereof namely, (1) Aarpejay Construction Private Limited. (2) Aarpejay Properties Private Limited (3) Aarpejay Holding Private Limited (4) Essjay Holding Private Limited (5) Smt. Sushila Jhunjhunwalla and (6) Abhishek Jhunjhunwalla. It is alleged by the petitioners that since they did not acquire the said property in a voluntary transaction, they could not ascertain the exact liability attached to it on various accounts before passing of the compromise decree. They further claimed that even the erstwhile owners thereof did not inform them about their outstanding dues on account of arrear tax of the said property. After becoming owners of the said property they, on enquiry from the Municipal Authority, came to know that a sum of Rs.3,81,12,767.00 (Rupees three crore eighty one lakh twelve thousand seven hundred sixty seven) including interest of Rs.1,85,96,390.00 (Rupees one crore eighty five lakh ninety six thousand three hundred ninety) and penalty of Rs.25,45, 614.45 (Rupees twenty five lakh forty five thousand six hundred fourteen & forty five paise) remains due and payable on account of arrears rates and taxes of the said property since the financial year of 1996-97 till date. On further enquiry the petitioners’ came to know that annual valuation of the said property had been fixed at an exorbitantly high quanta compared to the annual valuation of the comparable units in the selfsame building. It is contended by them that though the annual valuation of the other floors of the said building was calculated by accepting the rating value thereof as about Rs.5.00 per sq. ft. but the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property was assessed by applying Rs.15/- per sq. ft. as the rating value of the said property. It is contended by them that though the annual valuation of the other floors of the said building was calculated by accepting the rating value thereof as about Rs.5.00 per sq. ft. but the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property was assessed by applying Rs.15/- per sq. ft. as the rating value of the said property. The petitioner became astonished to note the disparity between the ratable value which was accepted by the Municipal Authority for assessing the other floors of the said building and the ratable value accepted by the Municipal Authority for assessing the annual valuation of the petitioners property situated in the same building. The petitioners became disappointed by taking note of such irrational and illogical assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property. As such the petitioners, by their letter dated 30th April, 2012 brought the aforesaid flaws in the assessment of the petitioners’ property to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and invited him to correct the tax bills and send those bills to the petitioners’ company. The Municipal Authority, after considering the petitioners’ said representation, informed the petitioner by a letter written by the Assistant Assessor-Collector (South) Div-18/Ward- 063 on 5th November, 2013, that since the petitioners’ company had been declared as owners of the said property on 6th July, 2002 by virtue of decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, their prayer for re-assessment/fresh assessment can be considered with effect from 2nd quarter 2002-2003 subject to payment of an outstanding property tax upto 1st quarter 2002-2003. By another letter written by the said authority on 23rd April, 2013 a sum of Rs.1,95,23,511.00 (Rupees one crore ninety five lakh twenty three thousand five hundred eleven) was demanded from the petitioners on account of arrear property tax as a condition for re-opening the said assessment under Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act w.e.f from 2nd quarter 2002-2003. The petitioners felt aggrieved for two fold reasons; firstly, for the reason that the Municipal Authority refused to re-open the assessment of the said property w.e.f the assessment period 1st quarter 1996-97 for no good reason and secondly, for the reason that such a huge amount of money was demanded from the petitioners as a condition for re-opening the assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property with effect from 2nd quarter 2002-2003. Mr. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew my attention to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh –Vs- MCD, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 167 and in the case of Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudahary -Vs- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 377 to convince me that the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property was not assessed by following the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those decisions. He further submitted that when vast disparity in choosing the ratable value between the petitioners’ property and other floors of the said premises i.e., the other comparable units of the same building, was detected by the Municipal Authority, it should have, on its own, re-opened the assessment of annual valuation of the said property w.e.f assessment period of 1996-97, as such disparity was noticed in assessment of the annual valuation of the said property since 1996-97. He further submitted that the reason for selecting the cut off date for reopening the assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property w.e.f. 2/2002-2003 as disclosed in the impugned communication letter of the Municipal authority is not at all convincing for two fold reasons i.e., (i) the Municipal Authority failed to appreciate that the arrear taxes is a charge on the petitioners’ property and the petitioners’ liability to redeem such charge runs with their title in the property which they acquired by an involuntary transfer through the compromise decree and (ii) when the assessment for the disputed period prior to the cut off date also suffers from inaccuracy which were identical with the infirmities in the assessment for the subsequent period i.e, from 2/2002-2003, there could be any justifiable reason for not re-opening the assessment with regard to pre-acquisition period i.e., w.e.f. 1996-1997. He further contended that no limitation is prescribed for re-opening such assessment by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 and as such when this vast disparity in the assessment of the petitioners’ property was brought to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Commissioner being a statutory authority ought to have initiated a suo motu proceeding for re-assessment of the said property with effect from 1996-97 till date. By drawing my attention to the ratable value chosen by the Municipal Authority for assessment of other comparable units of the said premises w.e.f. 1996-97, which was around Rs.5/- per sq. ft., he further submitted that his client is prepared to deposit the arrears rates and taxes of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 5.5 (ratable value) per sq. ft. w.e.f the financial year of 1996-97, as a condition for re-opening the assessment of annual valuation of the said property w.e.f 1996-97. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the Municipal Authority opposes such proposal of Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel by submitting that since the petitioners admittedly became the owners of the said property by virtue of the compromise decree w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003, the petitioners’ prayer for re-opening the assessment of the said property for the period prior to 2nd quarter 2002-2003 cannot be allowed; firstly for the reason that the assessment of the annual valuation of the said premises for the period prior to 2nd quarter 2002-2003 attained its finality in the hands of the erstwhile owners thereof who never questioned the correctness of such assessment and secondly, for the reason of want of locus of the petitioners to reopen such assessment for the said period when admittedly they had no right and/or title in the property. He further submitted that Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act makes it abundantly clear that assessment cannot be reopened at the instance of any assessee. According to him, such assessment can be reopened only by the Municipal Commissioner in his own motion, in any of the circumstances, as mentioned in the said provision. He thus, submitted that Municipal authority under no circumstances, can be compelled by the petitioners to re-open the assessment of the said premises under Section 192 of the said Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jalan & Ors. –Vs- Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Cal 237 . By referring to the letter written by the Municipal Authority he further submitted that even the Municipal Authority never agreed to re-open the assessment of the said premises w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003 unconditionally. –Vs- Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Cal 237 . By referring to the letter written by the Municipal Authority he further submitted that even the Municipal Authority never agreed to re-open the assessment of the said premises w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003 unconditionally. He pointed out from the said letter that the Municipal Authority accepted the petitioners’ proposal for re-opening the assessment of the said premises w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003, with a condition that such assessment will be re-opened only if the petitioners pay the entire outstanding rates and taxes of the said property amounting to Rs.1,95,23,511.00 (Rupees one crore ninety five lakh twenty three thousand five hundred eleven). He contended that some of the floors of the said premises was assessed by accepting the ratable value of the said premises at a much higher rate than the rate as mentioned in the writ petition. As such he submitted that even the assessment of the said property cannot be re-opened simply on payment of the arrears rates and taxes @ Rs. 5.50 per sq. ft. in the manner as suggested by Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Let me now consider the substance of the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the instant case. It is no doubt true that the assessment of annual valuation of any premises cannot be re-opened under Section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act at the instance of an assessee. Section 192 of the said Act only authorizes the Municipal Commissioner to re-open the assessment of annual valuation of any property on his own at any time, on any of the grounds as mentioned therein. Here is the case where the wide disparity between assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property and other comparable units of the said building, was brought to the notice of the Municipal commissioner. As such the Municipal Commissioner being statutory authority, in my view, on his own should have reopened such assessment to maintain uniformity in assessment of the petitioners’ property with the other comparable units of the said building. As such the Municipal Commissioner being statutory authority, in my view, on his own should have reopened such assessment to maintain uniformity in assessment of the petitioners’ property with the other comparable units of the said building. Since no limitation is prescribed under Section 192 of the said Act, for re-opening of such assessment at the instance of the Municipal Commissioner, mere delay in bringing these illegalities to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner, cannot be a reason for refusing to re-open the assessment for the earlier period i.e., prior to 2nd quarter 2002-2003 if uniformity in assessing the petitioners’ property with all other comparable units in the said building is found to be not maintained by the Municipal Authority. Undisputedly, the petitioners became the owners of the said 15th floor of the said premises w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003 by virtue of the compromise decree. As such their locus to challenge the correctness of assessment w.e.f. 2/2002-2003 cannot be denied, but at the same time, affectation of their right by irrational assessment of annual valuation of their property for the previous period i.e., w.e.f. 1996-97, cannot be denied, as arrears property tax is the first charge on the property under Section 232 of the said Act, which ultimately will be a liability of the petitioners which they will have to discharge. In my view, when the Municipal Authority basically and fundamentally agreed to re-open the assessment of the said property of the petitioners for the reason as pointed out to it by the petitioners w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003, this court does not find any justification for refusing to re-open the assessment of annual valuation of the said property of the petitioners for the earlier period i.e., w.e.f 1996-97 if the assessment of annual valuation of the petitioners’ said property is found to be irrational and illogical and if it is found that for identical reason the authority concerned agreed to re-open the assessment of the said premises w.e.f 2nd quarter 2002-2003. Of course, I agree with the contention of Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the Municipal Authority that such reassessment cannot be made unconditionally. Of course, I agree with the contention of Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing for the Municipal Authority that such reassessment cannot be made unconditionally. This court is of the view, that it is a fit case where the Municipal Authority is required to ascertain from its record as to whether uniformity was maintained for assessing the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property with the other comparable units of the said building since 1996-97, and if it is found that uniformity was not maintained, then the Municipal Commissioner is directed to re-open the assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property since 1996-97 by exercising his suo motu jurisdiction under Section 192 of the said Act, subject to depositing an amount equivalent to the arrear rates and taxes of the said property to be calculated by the Municipal Authority by applying the highest ratable value which was applied in respect of other comparable units for assessment of their annual valuation during the assessment period since 1996 97. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and the decision which will be taken by the Municipal Authority should be communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter. It is thus, clarified that if no discrepancy is detected in assessment of the annual valuation of the petitioners’ property for the period prior to 2/2002-2003, then the Municipal Commissioner need not reopen the assessment for any period prior to 2/2003-2003 with this rider that the proposal of the Municipal authority for re-opening the assessment of the petitioners’ property since 2/2002-2003 should be implemented by the Municipal Authority with this modification that the petitioners are required to deposit an amount equivalent to the arrear rates and taxes of the said property to be calculated by the Municipal Authority in the manner as aforesaid and such deposit will ultimately be adjusted with the petitioners’ ultimate liability towards the arrear rates and taxes to be determined by the Municipal Authority under Section 192 of the said Act. Needless to mention here that while re-assessing the valuation of the petitioners’ property for the disputed period, the Municipal authority should maintain uniformity with the annual valuation assessed for the other comparable units of the said building. Thus, writ petition is disposed of.