JUDGMENT : The appellant had assailed the annual valuation of his residential premises which was assessed by the respondent Municipal Corporation at Rs.7,503.00 and fixation of municipal tax at a quarterly rate of Rs.600.02 with effect from 1st July, 1994, i.e. 2nd quarter of 1994-95. It appears that the appellant earlier approached this Court whereupon by order dated 19th April, 1994 he was given liberty to apply before the respondent corporation in prescribed form for assessment of annual valuation and the respondent corporation was directed to pass an order after inspection of premises and after given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 2. Pursuant to such order, by memo dated 19th May, 1994 the Chairman of Asansol Municipal Board informed the appellant that the respondent Corporation has assessed the annual valuation of his premises at Rs.7,503.00 and also fixed quarterly tax at the rate of Rs.600.02 with effect from 1st July, 1994 i.e. 2nd quarter 1994-95. 3. Such order was challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. 4. It was pleaded in the writ petition that correct address of the premises had not been considered and that the valuation had been fixed at a much higher rate than that of the contiguous premises in the area. The appellant also pleaded that no inspection was held as required by the earlier order passed by the Court. His signature on the inspection book of assessment of the respondent Corporation was also disputed. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid issues were untenable both in law and fact. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. She has strenuously argued that the premises in question was situated at lower Chelidanga Road and not G.T. Road, Asansol as claimed by the respondents. She also argued that the annual valuation of the premises was much higher than the annual valuation of contiguous premises. She claimed that no inspection had been held in terms of the earlier order of this Court. 7. We find that neither in the objections raised before the respondent Corporation nor in the pleadings the particulars of the contiguous premises have been pleaded to establish that there was hostile discrimination of the appellant in the matter of fixation of annual valuation. 7. We find that neither in the objections raised before the respondent Corporation nor in the pleadings the particulars of the contiguous premises have been pleaded to establish that there was hostile discrimination of the appellant in the matter of fixation of annual valuation. Learned Single Judge has also rightly held that the impugned memo dated 18th May 1994 the address of the premises under reference has been described as "G.T. Road, Asansol" and the same had been acknowledged without demur by the appellant. 8. We also unable to accept the contention of the appellant that no inspection was held as the inspection records bear his signature. Authenticity of such signature was not contemporaneously challenged and has been belatedly disputed in the writ petition which was filed four years after the assessment was made. 9. That apart, the writ petition was preferred after a lapse of four years from the date of the impugned annual valuation of the premises. One can also take judicial notice of the fact that the impugned annual valuation has been reviewed and revised subsequently. 10. In the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that no case of interference has been made out. The appeal and all connected applications are accordingly dismissed.