JUDGMENT SOUMITRA PAL, J. In the writ petitions, in the Original Side, being W.P. 11 of 2013, W.P. 420 of 2013 and W.P. 388 of 2014, companies engaged in raising infrastructure for mobile telecommunication or mobile operators, the petitioner no.1, the employees of the companies, the petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.3, the owners of the premises whereupon towers have been installed, have, inter alia, prayed for a declaration that a mobile tower is not a building which can be subject to property tax within the meaning of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short 1980 Act) due to installation of mobile towers (hereinafter referred to as towers) falling under the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC for short) as it is illegal and without the authority of law or legislative competence. Reliefs sought for are to cancel the supplementary bills, rate cards and assessments slips issued with regard to payment of property tax and to restrain the authorities from imposing any property tax at a higher rate or on a higher assessment of annual valuation for installation of tower on the premises concerned. It is to be noted that in W.P. 339 of 2014, the son of the recorded owner of the premises, whereupon the tower has been installed, is the proforma respondent no.4. As Mr. Jishnu Saha learned senior advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 11 of 2013, Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned senior advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 420 of 2013, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned senior advocate in W.P. 339 of 2014, Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 388 of 2014, Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghose and Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned advocates for KMC were unanimous that in these Original Side matters, being W.P. 11 of 2013, W.P. 420 of 2013, W.P. 339 of 2014 and W.P. 388 of 2014, common questions of law are involved, matters were heard analogously. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate for the petitioner in W.P. 388 of 2014, Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghose and Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned advocates for KMC were unanimous that in these Original Side matters, being W.P. 11 of 2013, W.P. 420 of 2013, W.P. 339 of 2014 and W.P. 388 of 2014, common questions of law are involved, matters were heard analogously. In the writ petition being W.P. No. 15748 (W) of 2014, an Appellate Side matter, the petitioner no.1, Indus Towers Limited, the petitioner no.2, its employee and the petitioner no.3 the owner of the building whereupon the tower has been installed have prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that the provisions contained in the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (for short 1993 Act) have no application to the towers installed within the jurisdiction of the Kanchrapara Municipality (for short the Municipality) and to recall or rescind the letters demanding property tax and bills relating thereto. Since issues are identical, it was taken up for hearing along with the matters in the Original Side. It appears from the records that affidavits have been filed and exchanged. Let the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions filed in the Original Side be noted in brief. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner companies, having been recognised as infrastructure service providers by the Government of India by issuing circulars and/or notifications, had been granted licenses under the Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 1885 Act) by the Central Government to set up, expand and upgrade cellular services, have installed towers atop the buildings within the jurisdiction of the KMC after entering into lease and/or license agreement with its respective owners. Since a tower is a mode for receiving and relaying telegrams and/or wireless messages and is a form of telegraphic equipment, a telecom tower falls within the purview of definition of Telegraphs within the meaning of the 1885 Act. Telegraphs is placed under List I, Entry 31 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and cannot be made subject to any law or rules or taxes but for any law enacted by Parliament or rules framed thereunder, and KMC is not competent to access or impose property tax on such towers. Telegraphs is placed under List I, Entry 31 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and cannot be made subject to any law or rules or taxes but for any law enacted by Parliament or rules framed thereunder, and KMC is not competent to access or impose property tax on such towers. Since for cellular communication, telecommunication equipments are installed on towers and mobile telephone communication is not possible without a tower, which is not an enclosed space and cannot be construed as a building, tower cannot be subjected to tax under List II-Entry 49 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Referring to the judgment in Lipika Das vs. KMC, 2012 (4) WBLR (Cal) 483 submission was though it was held that under sections 2(5), 392 and 393 of the 1980 Act tower is a building and prior permission for raising it is mandatory, in the instant cases in the context of imposition of property tax, the issue is different as building under section 2(5) of the 1980 Act does not cover a building under Entry 49 of List II. Submission was in view of the amendment brought about by the legislature with effect from 1st May, 2007 by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 under section 171 of the 1980 Act that property tax on buildings in Kolkata should be between a minimum of 6% and maximum of 20% of the annual value of the building. Submission was, as in respect of period from 1st May 2007 till 30th September, 2012, when the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 was operative, the respondent authorities cannot levy property tax at any rate more than 20% of the annual valuation of the building, levy of property tax in excess of 20% in respect of the said period falling within 1st May, 2007 to 30th September, 2012 is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It was emphasized by the petitioners, particularly by Chennai Network Infrastructure, as for the said period tax has been determined at @ 40% of the annual valuation, under pre-amendment law which ceased to exist, and no property tax can be levied at a rate higher than the maximum of 20%, the same is equally void for application of the pre-amendment law. Moreover the assessments of annual valuation for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 at an enhanced rate by reason of installation of mobile tower ignores the amended law which authorizes the Municipal authority to determine the annual valuation on the basis of covered space only which does not include the roof and the tower. Submission was there is no provision in the 1980 Act to impose or levy any tax or fee of such kind. There is no legislative or statutory authority vested or to be found vested in the KMC to make such demands on account of property tax. In pith and substance the nature of tax imposed by the Municipal Corporation does not fall within the ambit of Entry 49 List II of the Constitution and the KMC has no power to levy or collect such tax. The claim and recoveries of property tax in respect of the premises due to the alleged increase in annual valuation of the property for installation of tower or letting out at higher rental value is unauthorised by law. Submission was any tax imposed on the activity on letting out of immovable property for commercial purpose does not fall within the ambit of lands and buildings in List II Entry 49. Moreover abnormal increase of value of a property is not a reasonable rent. So far as the point of maintainability of the writ petitions are concerned it was submitted that though the owners of the premises or lessors are primarily liable to pay property tax, as under the agreement entered into by the petitioner companies with the owners/lessors, the companies have to reimburse the amount of tax paid to the owners/lessors, or as under section 195 of the 1980 Act such tax is recoverable from the occupier if the owner/lessor, the person primarily liable to pay fails to pay property tax and as the companies are paying rent to the owner/lessor, writ petitions at the instance of the cellular companies are maintainable. It was particularly emphasized in W.P. 420 of 2013 though section 189 of the 1980 Act provides for a right to prefer appeal from an order passed under section 188(3) of the Act, however since the actions and orders of the respondent corporation impugned are void ab initio being without jurisdiction and without any authority of law, such orders passed by the respondents cannot be said to be orders passed under the Act and as such provision for appeal is not attracted and the same is illusory. Therefore, the petitioners are not required to file appeal against a void order. As there is no effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners, the only forum in which the petitioners can raise the issue of jurisdiction and consequential invalidity is by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Now let the arguments advanced by Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh and Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the KMC in the Original Side matters be noted in brief. It was submitted on behalf of KMC that it is evident from each of the writ petitions that written agreements were entered into between the owners of the premises and the petitioner companies for letting out portions of the roofs for a certain period on payment of rent with provisions for enhancement. Consequently in accordance with the 1980 Act, for determination of annual valuation, notices were sent to the owners of the respective premises. Hearing was granted, objections and lease agreements were considered and thereafter orders were passed fixing the annual valuation, which were accepted by the owners/lessors who are liable to pay property tax. As no appeals from the orders passed under section 188 of the 1980 Act were preferred by them before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, under section 190, the annual valuations had become final. Consequently the rate cards and bills were issued. In some cases taxes have been paid. Submission was as the petitioner companies at no point of time made applications to record their names in the assessment books of the Corporation, they have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. So far as the writ petitions at the instance of the lessor/owners, that is the petitioner no. 3 in the writ petition nos. Submission was as the petitioner companies at no point of time made applications to record their names in the assessment books of the Corporation, they have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. So far as the writ petitions at the instance of the lessor/owners, that is the petitioner no. 3 in the writ petition nos. W.P. 11 of 2013, W.P. 420 of 2013 and W.P. 388 of 2014 are concerned, as section 188 stipulates, if aggrieved by the annual valuation a person is at liberty to prefer appeal before the Tribunal, which they chose not to do within the statutory period of forty five days from the date of receipt of the order, the writ petitions by them are not maintainable. On merit it was submitted that in view of the provisions in the 1980 Act, though if aggrieved by the determination of the annual valuation a owner/lessor, that is the person liable to pay property tax, has a remedy by preferring statutory appeal before the Tribunal, in the instances cases challenge has been made indirectly by questioning the annual value determined without preferring such appeal. Since local authorities derive power to impose tax under Entry 49 of List II, as in none of the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of any of the provisions of the 1980 Act, particularly the taxation provisions thereof, they are estopped from questioning the manner in which annual valuations have been arrived at. Moreover, as assessments were made on the basis of rent received, as evident from the respective lease deeds which is the yardstick and not on the mobile tower, the assessment orders are just and legal. Countering the argument on behalf of the petitioner, particularly in W.P. 420 of 2013 that assessment is void, it was submitted that no assessment has been made under the amended provision which is yet to take effect as Scheme has not been published. Now let the submission on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition, being W.P. No. 15748 (W) of 2014 filed in the Appellate Side be noted in brief. Now let the submission on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition, being W.P. No. 15748 (W) of 2014 filed in the Appellate Side be noted in brief. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners reiterating the statements in the writ petition and the submissions advanced in W.P. 11 of 2013, Indus Towers Limited vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others, contended since mobile tower is a mechanical piece of equipment totally governed by the 1885 Act, keeping in mind Entry 31 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution, the purported reference to the 1993 Act in the context of tower is grossly anomalous as by the said process of interpretation a mobile tower cannot be said to be a building within the meaning of section 2 (3) or any other provision of the 1993 Act and therefore the 1993 Act has no application to the mobile towers of the petitioner company. As there is no provision in the 1993 Act for assessing a telecom tower, even if the petitioner no.3 had participated in the assessment proceedings and even if valuation was accepted, as it was without the authority of law, in view of Article 265 of the Constitution as there is no jurisdiction on the municipal authorities to impose tax on tower, the writ petition is maintainable. Since the building concerned was assessed to tax and there is no provision for segregation of tax, under section 97 of the 1993 Act, at best commercial surcharge could have been levied. On a query Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, however, submitted that the use of the word tower tax in the notice of demand cannot lead to a conclusion that telecommunication activity has been subjected to tax as the real intention to tax has to be gone into. Let the arguments on behalf of the Kanchrapara Municipality and State be noted in brief. At the very outset Mr. Bidyut Banerjee and Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the Municipality and State respectively submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Let the arguments on behalf of the Kanchrapara Municipality and State be noted in brief. At the very outset Mr. Bidyut Banerjee and Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocates appearing on behalf of the Municipality and State respectively submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Submission was that it is not in dispute that pursuant to an agreement dated 12th October, 2007 entered into between the petitioner no.3, the owner of the premises, the licensor and the licensee, in which Kanchrapara Municipality was not a party, tower for the purpose of mobile telecommunication was installed in the year 2007 on payment of rent. Thereafter, during October, 2009 the West Bengal Valuation Board (Board for short) in accordance with the provisions contained in West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978 (for short the 1978 Act) revised the valuation of the property of the petitioner no.3 from third quarter 2009-2010 as evident from page 22 of the affidavit in reply. On 10th November, 2009 the petitioner no.3 furnished an application for review of assessment or valuation of the premises. Accordingly, after considering the agreement and after giving opportunity of hearing, annual valuation was fixed at Rs. 81,000/- as evident from page 21 of the affidavit in reply. Submission was on the application of the petitioner no.3 valuation was revised by the Board by passing an order which is effective from 3rd quarter 2009-2010. As under section 111 of the 1993 Act assessment arrived at is an appealable order and as the petitioner no.3, the person liable to pay property tax, chose not to prefer appeal and as Board is not a party to this writ petition, the writ petition by the petitioner no.3 is not maintainable. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, as they are neither the owners of the premises nor under the 1993 Act liable to pay property tax, and as in default of payment of property tax, under section 147 of the 1993 Act, it shall be recovered from the petitioner no.3, the owner of the premises, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have no locus standi to move the writ petition. As agreement dated 12th October, 2007, does not bind the Municipality, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are non-est in the eye of law before the authorities. 1 and 2 have no locus standi to move the writ petition. As agreement dated 12th October, 2007, does not bind the Municipality, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are non-est in the eye of law before the authorities. Assuming the writ petition is maintainable, as Entry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India authorises state to enact laws for levying taxes on lands and buildings and as accordingly 1993 Act confers power on the municipalities to impose property tax and as after installation of the tower, on an application by the respondent no.3, valuation was determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the 1978 Act and 1993 Act, as the owner of the property, the person liable to pay property tax, did not challenge the order of reassessment enhancing property tax before the appellate forum, the writ petition is devoid of merit. Submission was the writ petition is an attempt to reopen the assessment proceedings and thereby not to pay property tax levied in accordance with law on the building, a part of which is used for commercial or nonresidential purpose. Learned advocates for the respective parties had cited judgments in support of their respective submission which shall be dealt with appropriately. The primary question which requires to be considered is whether in the facts of the present cases under consideration, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Kanchrapara Municipality are empowered under the law to levy property tax and, if competent, whether such tax has been levied on the towers set up atop the buildings. The other questions which require to be considered in the Original Side matters are – (i) whether the petitioner companies engaged in raising infrastructure for cellular communication and their employees, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, in view of the provisions in the 1980 Act, have locus standi to move the writ petitions and (ii) whether having participated in the assessment proceedings before the respective Hearing Officers of the KMC and without preferring statutory appeals under section 189 of the 1980 Act from the orders passed in such proceedings, the writ petitions at the instance of the owners/lessors, the petitioners, are maintainable. The questions which require to be considered in the writ petition filed in the Appellate Side are – (i) whether having participated in the assessment proceedings for determination of valuation before the West Bengal Valuation Board and without preferring appeal in writing before the Competent Authority under section 111 of the 1993 Act from the order determining annual valuation passed in such proceedings, the writ petition at the instance of the owner/lessor, the writ petitioner no.3 is maintainable; (ii) whether the petitioner company engaged in raising infrastructure for cellular communication has locus standi to move the writ petition and (iii) since under 1993 Act annual valuation has been determined by the West Bengal Valuation Board, whether the writ petition is maintainable without making the Board a party respondent. A supplementary question which arises is assuming the writ petitions are maintainable, whether the rate cards, bills, supplementary bills and letters of demand for payment of property tax can be challenged without questioning the assessment orders passed by the KMC and the Kanchrapara Municipality. Before dealing with the issues, it is appropriate to set out the relevant portion of Article 243X, Article 265, List I - Union List 31 and List II - State List 49 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Article 243X is as follows:- 243X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the Municipalities – The Legislature of a State may, by law:- (a) Authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits. (b) Assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits. Article 265 is as under - 265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authorities of law. No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. List I - Union List 31 is set out hereunder:- 31. Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication. List II-State List 49 is as follows:- 49. Taxes on lands and buildings. (Emphasis supplied) To deal with the Original Side matters it is appropriate to set out sections 2(68A), the relevant portions of sections 170, 171, 180, 189 and section190 of the 1980 Act. Relevant portion of Section 2(68A) is as follows:- 2. List II-State List 49 is as follows:- 49. Taxes on lands and buildings. (Emphasis supplied) To deal with the Original Side matters it is appropriate to set out sections 2(68A), the relevant portions of sections 170, 171, 180, 189 and section190 of the 1980 Act. Relevant portion of Section 2(68A) is as follows:- 2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – (68A) Property tax means the annual tax on building or buildings, or on lands comprising any building or any vacant land, or on both. (Emphasis supplied) Relevant portion of Section 170 is extracted herein below – 170. Taxes to be levied by the Corporation:- (1) The Corporation shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to levy the following taxes:- (a) A (property tax) on lands and buildings. (2) The levy, assessment and collection of taxes mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (Emphasis supplied) The relevant portion of section 171 is as follows - 171. (Property tax) on lands and buildings. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a property tax on lands and buildings in Kolkata, as determined under this Chapter, shall be imposed by the Corporation. (Emphasis supplied) The relevant portion of section 180 is set out hereunder:- 180. Revision of assessment – (1)……………… (2) ……………… (i) ……………… (ii) When the nature of occupancy changes. (iii) When the nature of its use changes; or Relevant portion of section 189 is as follows:- 189. Appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal – (5) Any owner or person liable to payment of (property tax) may, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under section 188 appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that such appeal shall be presented to the Tribunal within forty-five days from the date of service or (a copy of the order) under section 188 and shall be accompanied by a copy of the said order. (6) No appeal under this section shall be entertained unless the property tax, including penalty, together with interest on such property tax, if any, in respect of any land or building for the period ending on the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined under section 174 or section 188 has been deposited in the office of the Corporation and the appeal shall abate unless such property tax, together with interest on such property tax, if any, is continued to be deposited regularly till the appeal is finally disposed of: Provided that, if the provision of this section is not complied with, due to misrepresentation or, otherwise, any proceedings in the Municipal Assessment Tribunal will stand ipso facto void." Section 190 is set out hereunder:- 190. The Final Valuation – Every valuation determined under this chapter shall be final. In order to answer the primary question, it is to be noted that under Entry 31 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, Union of India is competent to enact laws with regard to Posts and telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication. Similarly under List II Entry 49 of the Schedule, State legislature has been empowered to legislate with regard to Taxes on lands and buildings. Accordingly State legislature had enacted Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which contains a Part on Taxation. Sections 170 to 232 under the said Part authorises KMC to levy a property tax on lands and buildings. Section 171(1) stipulates that for the purpose of 1980 Act a property tax on lands and building, as determined under Chapter XII, shall be imposed by the KMC. The said Part contains elaborate provisions for determination of annual valuation, procedure for assessment and to deal with the objections, provisions for maintenance of municipal assessment book and on incidence and payment of property tax and mode of recovery of tax. Therefore, 1980 Act empowers KMC to issue notices to the recorded owners/assessees for levy of property tax on lands and buildings and to levy such tax. Similarly consequent to the exclusive power under the said List II Entry 49 State had enacted the West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978 “to establish a Valuation Board and Valuation Authorities for the purpose of valuation of lands and buildings in West Bengal (emphasis supplied). Similarly consequent to the exclusive power under the said List II Entry 49 State had enacted the West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978 “to establish a Valuation Board and Valuation Authorities for the purpose of valuation of lands and buildings in West Bengal (emphasis supplied). State has also enacted West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. Necessary provisions for levy of property tax have been made in Part IV of the 1993 Act under the heading Municipal Taxation and Application Fee. Section 93(1) of the 1993 Act empowers the Board of Councillors to levy, inter alia, a property tax on lands and buildings and under sub-section (2) levy, assessment and collection of taxes mentioned in sub-section(1) of the said section shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and the byelaws made thereunder. Section 96 lays down the manner in which property tax on lands and buildings is to be determined. Section 97 speaks of levy of surcharge on the property tax if such building is used wholly or in part for commercial, industrial or such other nonresidential purposes. Section 106 stipulates that for the purpose of assessment of the property tax, the annual value of a holding comprising land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent including service charges, if any, at which such land or building might, at the time of assessment, be reasonably expected to let from year to year, less an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain such land or building in a state to command such gross rent. Provided that such holding, if utilised for any gainful purpose, shall be deemed to be in commercial use for the purpose of levy of surcharge under section 97. If an owner or person liable to pay property tax is aggrieved with the determination of annual valuation, section 111 is the provision for appeal. Hence, 1980 Act, for the areas falling under the KMC, and 1978 and 1993 Act for the areas falling under a municipality, are complete codes authorising the KMC and the Municipality to determine annual valuation on lands and buildings and to impose property tax thereon. Hence, 1980 Act, for the areas falling under the KMC, and 1978 and 1993 Act for the areas falling under a municipality, are complete codes authorising the KMC and the Municipality to determine annual valuation on lands and buildings and to impose property tax thereon. The principles of law in the judgments in Godfrey Philips India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2005) 2 SCC 515 and in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2011 (24) STR 129 (Del) do not assist the petitioners as tax has been imposed by KMC on the basis of the taxing provisions in the 1980 Act the validity of which had been upheld in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2003) 10 SCC 533 . In view of provisions contained in the 1980 Act, 1978 Act and 1993 Act, the principles of law laid down in the unreported judgment delivered on 23rd November, 2013 by the Karnataka High Court in Wireless - TT Info Services Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, particularly in paragraph 16 thereof, are not applicable. Since List I Entry 31 and List II Entry 49 are specific, distinct and separate entries and as the 1980 Act, 1978 Act and 1993 Act provide that the basis of the valuation for the purpose of levying a tax is on the annual letting out value and not on the activity or the purpose for which it has been used and as in Radhakisan Rathi v. Additional Collector Durg, AIR 1995 SC 1540 it has been held that It is now well settled that the same subject-matter can be covered by the taxation nets imposed by different competent taxing authorities. And as the KMC and the Municipality under the respective statutes are competent to impose property tax, the contention of the petitioners that levy of property tax is an invasion in the legislative field of the Union of India cannot be accepted. Admittedly the petitioner companies involved in the business of, inter alia, providing infrastructure services for erection of towers, which are essential for providing telecommunication services, have been granted registration certificate by the Ministry of Communication to establish and install infrastructure for such service. Admittedly the petitioner companies involved in the business of, inter alia, providing infrastructure services for erection of towers, which are essential for providing telecommunication services, have been granted registration certificate by the Ministry of Communication to establish and install infrastructure for such service. It appears from the facts of the petitions that pursuant to the lease agreements entered into by the owners/ lessors of the buildings concerned and the petitioner companies, portions on roof tops/terraces were let out to the petitioner companies for installation of towers on payment of rent. The petitioner companies in order to provide mobile telephone service/ network connectivity had set up telecom infrastructure in the form of telecom towers on the roof tops/terraces of the buildings in question which are within the municipal limits of KMC and/or the municipality as the case may be. Thereafter, as noted, from facts under the 1980 Act with regard to the areas falling under the KMC and under the 1978 Act and 1993 Act for the area under the municipality, respective authorities issued notices to the owners/lessors of the premises for enhancement of annual value of the premises for rise of rent, granted hearing and passed orders fixing the annual valuation on the basis of the rent received by the owners/ lessors as per the agreements. Now the question is whether property tax has been reassessed and imposed by the KMC and the Municipality on the mobile tower itself as contended by the petitioner or on the portion of the roof/terrace let out on the basis of annual rent. Since it is clear from the assessment orders passed by the KMC or Municipality, which have been annexed to the writ petitions or to the affidavits, that annual value was determined by taking note of the annual rent paid by the petitioner companies to the owners/lessors after making statutory deductions in accordance with the provisions of the 1980 Act or the 1993 Act, as the case may be, it is on the annual letting out value of the portion of the premises concerned and not a tax on tower. The argument that the valuation was made on the basis of the covered space of the building under section 171 of the 1980 Act cannot be accepted as it is clear that it was on the basis of the rent received from the area let out by the owner/lessor. The argument that the valuation was made on the basis of the covered space of the building under section 171 of the 1980 Act cannot be accepted as it is clear that it was on the basis of the rent received from the area let out by the owner/lessor. So far as the unreported judgment of the Gujarat High Court in GTL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, relied on behalf of the petitioners, I find therein challenge was to the vires of section 145A of the GPMC Act. Section 145A is as follows:- "145A. Tax on mobile towers – (1) A tax at the rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government in this behalf from time to time shall be levied on mobile towers from the person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers. (2) The Corporation shall from year to year, in accordance with section 99, determine the rates at which the tax shall be levied." (Emphasis supplied) As seen under section 145A, which was introduced by an amendment of the GPMC Act, tax was levied on mobile towers. However, as in the cases in hand I find that on the basis of the agreements and in accordance with the 1980 KMC Act and 1978 Act and 1993 Act the Hearing Officers and the authorities had reassessed the annual valuation on the letting out value, the judgment in GIL Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) is inapplicable. So far as the first question with regard to the Original Side matters is concerned, it is to be noted that section 186 of the 1980 Act stipulates that if aggrieved by the annual value determined by the KMC, the owner or the person liable to pay property tax is entitled to raise objection in writing to the Municipal Commissioner stating in what respect the annual value is disputed. Under section 189(5) any owner or person liable to payment of property tax, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under section 188, may prefer appeal to the Tribunal. Under section 193 of the 1980 Act the property tax on lands and buildings shall be primarily leviable – (a) If the land or building is let, upon the lessor. (b) If the land or building is sublet, upon the superior lessor. Under section 193 of the 1980 Act the property tax on lands and buildings shall be primarily leviable – (a) If the land or building is let, upon the lessor. (b) If the land or building is sublet, upon the superior lessor. Therefore, under the 1980 Act owner or person liable to pay property tax or lessor has a legal right to raise objection to the annual value determined by the KMC and if aggrieved are entitled to prefer appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. As seen, the petitioner companies paid rent to the owners, the persons liable to pay property tax. As there was change in the nature of the use of the property and there was rise of rent, the annual valuation was revised after giving the owners an opportunity of hearing. Hence, in the eye of law, as the petitioner companies are neither the owners nor the persons liable to pay property tax, they have no locus standi to move the writ petitions. In view of the specific provision in section 189(5) of the 1980 Act whereby an owner or person liable to pay property tax, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under section 188 may prefer appeal to the Tribunal and as specific provisions of the 1980 Act prevail over the general law and as the petitioner companies never applied before the KMC for recording their names in the assessment registers, the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in IDL Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 373 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 1 , Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 are not applicable. The principles of law laid down in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1 are not applicable as there is neither any allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice nor the jurisdiction of the officers of the KMC have been questioned or the validity of any of the provisions of the 1980 Act have been challenged. So far as the judgment in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2003) 10 SCC 533 is concerned, wherein the validity of the provisions contained in Part IV Chapter XII under the heading Power of Taxation and Property Taxes of the 1980 Act was challenged, the Supreme Court, as evident from paragraph 51 of the said judgment, while upholding the validity of the Statute and holding the tenants, sub-tenants and occupants are entitled to an opportunity to participate in the process of valuation and assessment in paragraph 34 had held as under:- "In the aforesaid circumstances, on examination of the provisions of the Act and as reasonably construing Section 189(6) of the Act, we find that the right of appeal as an effective remedy has to be given to a tenant, sub-tenant or occupant who is a person liable with person primarily liable for payment of consolidated rate and it would be available only on payment of the consolidated rate as apportioned as his liability and held payable by him. Any other interpretation would frustrate the very object of providing the right of appeal to person liable with the person primarily liable. This is how the provision has to be reasonably interpreted and read down." In the background of this judgment it is to be noticed that none of the petitioner companies did ever file any application before the KMC for registering their names as persons liable to pay rent and having ignored to record their names and in view of the law laid down in KMC vs. Ram. N. Kajaria, 2009 (1) CHN 382 as the petitioner companies, - the occupiers, failed to satisfy the point that they are the recorded occupiers, and as such the Corporation had no legal duty and responsibility to serve any notice, now cannot indirectly challenge the valuations which have become final under section 190 of the Act. N. Kajaria, 2009 (1) CHN 382 as the petitioner companies, - the occupiers, failed to satisfy the point that they are the recorded occupiers, and as such the Corporation had no legal duty and responsibility to serve any notice, now cannot indirectly challenge the valuations which have become final under section 190 of the Act. Since each of the writ petitions have been filed after the time to prefer statutory appeals under section 189(5) have expired, it appropriate to refer to the principles of law laid down in paragraph 11 of the judgment in A.V. Venkateswaran vs. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 , relied on behalf of the KMC, wherein it was held that if a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the Court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour. This principle has been followed in the judgment in Cal. Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. Kalavanti Doshi Trust, 2011 (1) CHN (CAL) 182 wherein it has been held As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Chattrisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others, 2010 (5) SCC page 23, in this type of cases, there is even no scope of application of section 5 of the Limitation Act by taking aid of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and as such, it is apparent that on the date of presentation of the writ-application, the remedy of the writ petitioners was totally barred. It is now settled law that a Writ Court should not by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India revive a barred remedy. The Order passed in State of U.P vs. Raj Bahadur Singh, (1998) 8 SCC 685 , relied on by the petitioners, is not a law declared and binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution and is distinguishable on facts as it relates to a service dispute wherein there was no time limit for filing the writ petition, whereas 1980 Act sets out a time frame to file statutory appeals which were not availed of by the owners/lessors, the petitioners. That apart, the writ petitions are premature as prior to moving the petitions no demand for justice was furnished before the KMC, as stipulated in Rule 20 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to applications under Articles 226 of the Constitution with regard to any grievance. With regard to the second question, after agreements were entered into by the lessors, space was let out to the petitioner companies. Thereafter, in consonance with sections 184, 186, 187 and 188 of the 1980 Act notices were sent to the owners/lessors, whose names were already mutated in its records, for assessment of annual valuation. Respective Hearing Officers granted hearing, objections were considered, and orders were passed revising the annual valuations. No statutory appeals were preferred by the owners/lessors challenging the assessment/reassessment orders. Accordingly, in accordance with law, rate cards, bills and/or supplementary bills were issued to the owners/lessors. It is to be noted that in none of the writ petitions there is any allegation of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice by the Hearing Officers or lack of jurisdiction. In such background if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under section 188 or with the assessment orders, the owners/lessors, in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 189, should have preferred appeals before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal within the statutory period. Not having availed themselves of the alternative remedy under the 1980 Act, on the other hand in some cases having paid property tax, the writ petitions at the instance of the lessors and/or owners are not maintainable. In order to deal with the writ petition, being, W.P. 15748 (W) of 2014, the Appellate Side matter, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in the 1978 Act. Section 9 is as follows:- 9. Determination of Valuation and its duration – (1) The State Government shall, from time to time by notification, specify the area where, the general valuation of lands and buildings shall be made by the Board, in accordance with the provisions of. The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, (West Bengal Act XXII of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force in such area, as the case may be, in so far as they relate to the determination of annual valuation. (2)……………….. The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, (West Bengal Act XXII of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force in such area, as the case may be, in so far as they relate to the determination of annual valuation. (2)……………….. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) if, during the currency of any period referred to in sub-section (2), any new building is erected, or any existing building is reconstructed or substantially altered or improved, in any area, the determination of valuation of such premises shall be subject to the same criteria as has been fixed by the Board for such premises, and its valuation shall be covered by such procedure as may be determined by the Board for its immediate valuation with prior mandatory filing of statement of particulars under section 16 by the owner or occupier." Section 9A is as under:- 9A. Publication of draft valuation list – (1) When the valuation under section 9 of the lands and buildings in any area has been completed, the Board shall cause such valuation list and the amount of property tax thereon to be entered in a list. (2) The Board shall publish the draft valuation list, prepared under sub-section (1), in such manner, as may be prescribed and shall specify a date within which an application for objection to the draft valuation list may be filed. (3) After the expiry of the date specified in sub-section (2) and within such period thereafter as may be prescribed, the objection of any entry in the draft valuation list shall be determined after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, by such officer or officers of the Board or the Corporation or Municipality concerned as may be specified by the Board in this behalf. (4) The objection shall be filed and determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 11 is as under:- 11. Publication of final valuation list – When the applications under sub-section (2) of section 9A, if any, have been determined, the Board shall prepare a final valuation list and shall give public notice of the place or places where such list may be inspected and the valuation together with the amount of property tax thereon as recorded in the final valuation list shall be conclusive. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1993 Act. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1993 Act. 2. Definitions – In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- Section 2 (49A) is extracted hereunder:- (49A) Property tax means a rate assessed, on building or buildings, or on lands or on both, and includes surcharge levied on property tax under this Act. Section 93 is set out herein below:- 93. Power to impose taxes – (1) The Board of Councillors shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to levy the following taxes:- (a) A property tax on lands and buildings, Section 96 is as follows:- 96. Property tax on lands and buildings – (1) For the purpose of this Act, a property tax on the annual value of lands and buildings as determined under this Chapter, shall be imposed by the Municipality. (2) Such property tax shall be determined as follows:- Section 97 is set out hereunder:- 97. Levy of surcharge – A surcharge at such rate not less than 20 per cent and not exceeding 50 per cent of the total amount of the property tax imposed on a holding shall be levied if such holding is used wholly or in part for commercial, industrial or such other non-residential purposes as the Board of Councillors may, from time to time decide and the rate of surcharge shall form part of the property tax for the purpose of recovery. Section 106 is set out hereunder:- 106. Determination of annual valuation – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (West Bengal Act XII of 1956), or in any other law for the time being in force, for the purpose of assessment of the property tax, the annual value of a holding comprising land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent including service charges, if any, at which such land or building might, at the time of assessment, be reasonably expected to let from year to year, less an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain such land or building in a state to command such gross rent. (1A) ……………….. (2) ……………….. (1A) ……………….. (2) ……………….. Provided that such holding, if utilised for any gainful purpose, shall be deemed to be in commercial use for the purpose of levy of surcharge under section 97. Section 110 is as follows:- 110. Preparation of valuation and assessment list – (1) The general valuation of holding under this Chapter shall be made, unless otherwise directed by the State Government, under the West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act LVII of 1978) and the preparation of valuation list, amount of property tax determined under section 96 on the basis of such valuation list, and disposal of applications for hearing objections shall abide by the provisions of that Act. Section 111 is as follows:- 111. Appeal – (1) Any owner or person liable to pay property tax may, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection, filed by him under section 9A of the West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act LVII of 1978) prefer an appeal in writing to the Competent Authority under this section within sixty days from the date of issuance of notice under section 11 of the West Bengal Valuation Board Act, 1978. (Emphasis supplied) So far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned as evident neither the vires of any of the provisions of 1978 Act nor of the 1993 Act or of the rules framed thereunder is under challenge. Section 9 of the 1978 Act empowers the State Government by issuing notification to specify the area where the general valuation of lands and buildings shall be made by the Board in accordance with such statutes specified therein which includes the 1993 Act in so far it relates to the determination of annual valuation. The said 1978 Act enumerates in detail the procedure for determination of annual valuation. Section 9A of the 1978 Act stipulates publication of draft valuation list. Section 11 of the 1978 Act speaks of publication of final valuation list mentioning the valuation and the property tax which would be conclusive. Section 16 of the 1978 Act mandates every owner or occupier of any land or building to file statement before the Board specifying such particulars as may be prescribed. In the instant case the petitioner no.3, the owner of the premises that is the person liable to pay property tax, after installation of tower, duly applied for revision of property tax. In the instant case the petitioner no.3, the owner of the premises that is the person liable to pay property tax, after installation of tower, duly applied for revision of property tax. Consequently, Board had passed an order determining final valuation of the premises. Thereafter, the municipality has issued the demand notices which are under challenge. Evidently Board, having jurisdiction, pursuant to the application from the petitioner no.3, in compliance with the provisions contained in the 1978 Act, had published the final valuation list after giving an opportunity of hearing. As the petitioner no.3, the owner, that is the person liable to pay property tax, did not prefer appeal from the order fixing annual valuation before the Competent Authority under section 111 of the 1993 Act after determination of her application and as valuation list was finally published, she is estopped from questioning the valuation arrived at. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the said respondent no.3. So far as the writ petition by the petitioner company is concerned, since it is neither the owner of the property nor the person liable to pay property tax under sections 111 and 152 of the 1993 Act and at no point of time applied for recording its name in the municipal assessment register, the petitioner company has no locus standi to move the writ petition. With regard to the third question, it is to be noted that valuation of the premises of the writ petitioner no.3 was revised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the 1978 Act and thereafter the Municipality had issued bills and letters of demand. Therefore, Board is a necessary party. Hence without arraigning the Board as a party respondent the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of a necessary party. So far as the supplementary question is concerned, it is to be noted that bills, supplementary bills, rate cards and letters of demand for payment of property tax were issued by the KMC and the Municipality to give effect to the reassessment orders passed. It is to be noted that in none of the writ petitions the assessments orders finalising property tax passed by the Hearing Officers of the KMC and the Board have been challenged. It is to be noted that in none of the writ petitions the assessments orders finalising property tax passed by the Hearing Officers of the KMC and the Board have been challenged. Since in the writ petitions assessments orders have not been questioned, the challenge to the bills, supplementary bills, rate cards and letters of demand is without substance and, thus, fails. Assuming the writ petitions are maintainable, the feeble attempt to indirectly question the jurisdiction of the authorities in passing the assessment orders cannot be accepted in the absence of challenge to the same. Therefore, the unreported judgment delivered on 11th February, 2011 in APO No. 213 of 2004, Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others vs. Hastings Property and Others relied on behalf of the petitioners is of no assistance. There are some incidental points which need to be considered. In W.P. No. 339 of 2014 Viom Net Works Limited and another versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another, though the cause title and the lease deed dated 17th June, 2004 give an impression that the bills and demands on reassessment with regard to annual valuation of the tower situated at premises no. 48 G.B.T. Road Kolkata 700050 have been challenged, however, I find that in effect it is a general challenge to the bills and demands raised by the KMC after reassessing property tax with regard to premises whereon towers have been installed by the said petitioner company though neither the owners/lessors of such premises have been added as parties nor any statement has been made about the outcome of the assessment proceedings, if any, and orders passed therein. It becomes clear from the intimation dated 22nd July, 2011 and 14th February, 2014, annexed to the writ petition, sent by the KMC to one K.K. Basu, Secretary Ankita Apartment Owner’s Association of 80C Chetla Kolkata - 700027 and to one Daya Shankar Shaw of 25 E Rafi Ahamed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700016, who are not parties to the writ petition. Further though in paragraph 26 of the petition it has been alleged that no notice of hearing required under section 184 of the 1980 Act had been given nor any hearing held in accordance with the provisions of the Act, however, I find from a copy of the objection docket of the KMC furnished and kept on record in Court that on 1st July, 2013 with the consent of both sides hearing was granted, agreement was considered, rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month was taken note of and annual value was revised at Rs. 2,10,490/- including NRAV of Rs. 1,66,000/- and the proforma respondent had seen the order and had put his signature. Besides the apprehension of the petitioners companies regarding invocation of section 195 of the 1980 Act or section 149(e) of the 1993 Act in case of default of payment of property tax by the recorded owner/lessor is without basis as no prejudice would be caused as rent paid by them would be attached. In W.P. No. 15748 (W) of 2014 the statements in paragraphs 64 and 65 are far from correct as demand raised, as evident from the annexure to the writ petition, is not on the petitioner company but on Minati Rani Saha, the petitioner no.3 who had participated in the assessment proceedings, regarding which the petition is silent. That apart it is evident from the petitions filed in the Original Side that the petitioner companies have taken up the cause of the owners/lessors who have not preferred statutory appeals. If the argument of the petitioners is accepted and writ petitions are entertained it shall not only unsettle the assessments orders which have become final under section 190 but would also mean allowing the petitioners to bypass section 189(5) and (6), the validity of which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society (supra). As section 111 of the 1993 Act and section 11 of the 1978 Act are akin to sections 189(5)(6) and 190 of the 1980 Act, the same principles of law are applicable to the writ petition being W.P. No. 15478 (W) of 2014. In short if the submission of the petitioners is accepted it would render sections 189(5) (6) and 190 of the 1980 Act, section 11 of the 1978 Act and section 111 of the 1993 Act otiose. In short if the submission of the petitioners is accepted it would render sections 189(5) (6) and 190 of the 1980 Act, section 11 of the 1978 Act and section 111 of the 1993 Act otiose. Since the petitioner companies have no locus standi to move the writ petitions and writ petitions at the instance of the lessors have been found to be not maintainable, the judgment in India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2002) 3 SCC 388 , which deals with the proposition whether a rent paid by a sub-tenant can be the basis of fixing annual valuation and in Durjendra vs. K. Shaw, AIR 1953 Calcultta 147 and in The Corporation of Calcutta vs. Anil Prokash Basu, AIR 1958 Calcutta 423 and the unreported judgment in APO No. 213 of 2004, Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others vs. Hastings Property and Others (supra) need not be considered. The judgment in Bhagwant Rai vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 5 SCC 440 does not help the petitioners as there is no question of admission made wrongly since it is evident that the recorded owners had participated in the respective assessment proceedings and assessment orders were passed after considering the written agreements and the rent derived by the owners. Since owners/lessors had accepted the reassessment of the annual valuations which were arrived at by adopting the rental method as evident from the annexure to the writ petitions and/or affidavits and the owners/lessors or person liable to pay property tax chose not to prefer statutory appeals and as the petitioners companies at no point of time had filed application for recording their names as assessees in the assessment registers of the KMC or the Municipality, the writ petitions are without substance and devoid of merit. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. Accordingly, the applications being G.A. No. 3503 of 2013 in W.P. No. 11 of 2013 and G.A. No. 807 of 2014 in W.P. No. 420 of 2013 are also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners shall pay the demands raised by the KMC and the Municipality within four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the certified copy of this order failing which the KMC and the Municipality are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances a cost of Rs. Therefore, the petitioners shall pay the demands raised by the KMC and the Municipality within four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the certified copy of this order failing which the KMC and the Municipality are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances a cost of Rs. 8500/- is imposed on each of the petitions in W.P. No. 11 of 2013, W.P. No. 420 of 2013, W.P. 339 of 2014 and W.P. No. 388 of 2014 payable to the KMC. In W.P. No. 15748 (W) of 2014 too the petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 8500/- and Rs. 3400/- to the Kanchrapara Municipality and State respectively.