JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. These two appeals for the sake of convenience were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appeal, being No. 1255 of 1990 arises out of the Judgment and order dated 14th July. 1988, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition of the first respondent was allowed. The fact of the matter, shorn of all necessary details, is as follows :–
2. The writ petitioner/first respondent Is ihe owner of a premise situated at 21B, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta. The appellant herein was the tenant in respect of a portion of the said premises. At the instance of the appellant the Second Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, sought to be the person authorised by the State of West Bengal, Issued a Notification on or about 5-8-1983 requisitioning the entire premises, inter alia, stating,
“WHEREAS in my opinion it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for the purpose connected therewith or Incidental thereto, viz., for Data process-ing services to requisition the land described in the Schedule below :–
AND WHEREAS the State Government has by Notification No. 1975 4-L.A. dated 22.11.63 published in the Calcutta Gazette, Part I of the 19.2.63 at page 2521 read with Notification No. 184-Estt/8A-l/82 dated 21.2.82, authorised me to exercise the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948).
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948) read with the authority so vested in me as aforesaid), I do hereby requisition the land mentioned in the Schedule below and made the following further orders, namely :–
That the land described in the Schedule below shall be placed at my disposal and contract on 6.8.83 at 11 A.M. when an officer deputed from this office will take charge and possession of the said land.
SCHEDULE
Description of the land
Land measuring, more or less, 0.0531 of a hectare (equivalent to 0.1312 of an acre) comprising premises No. 21B, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta, in Ward No. 72 of the Municipality of Calcutta within the City of Calcutta, butted and bounded on the :–
North : By prs. No. 9/2, Rainy Park and
Gurusaday Rd.
By prs. No. 21 A, Gurusaday Rd. for
-merely being part of prs. No. 21
Gurusaday Rd
South : By Prs. No. 21, Gurusaday Rd.
West : By Prs. No. 9/2. Rainy Park and Prs.
No. 62/4, Ballygunge Circular Road.
Calcutta."
3. The said order of requisition was, inter alia, questioned by the first respondent herein, inter alia, on the ground that the same had been issued mala jlde and in colourable exercise of power. The first respondent in its writ application, tnter alia, contended that the said requisition had been made when the first respondent refused to execute a Deed of Sale in favour of the requisitionlst.
4. The fact that the appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is not in dispute. One of the question which has been raised is as to whether such requisition was permissible at the instance of a private limited company.
5. As Indicated herein before the purported requisition had been made only for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of community or for purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto, namely, data processing services. Data processing services in our considered opinion cannot be a purpose which is essential for maintaining of supplies and services to the life of community.
6. Strangely enough the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition even did not seek to Justify the said purpose and Instead In paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition stated.
“The Company’s data processing service burden offers employment to about 200 people. Their nature of service Includes preparation of time reports related to financial accounting, Inventory control, material management, sales analysis etc. They also render service in the preparation of weekly fortnightly and monthly payroll of Calcutta Port Trust, Jute Industries, Chemical Industries, Banks etc. The above company also offer regular, monthly training to 80 boys and girls. They have also engaged a number of physically handicapped person and planned to start a new training centre for deaf and dumb who will receive training In operation of date machine. So that they may earn their livelihood without the help of others and therefore it is for the benefit of the public Including physically handicapped persons”.
The purpose for which the purported requisition had been mentioned In the affldavit-ln-opposition are dehors the statements made In the notification dated 5.8.83.
7. The learned single Judge in the aforementioned premises quashed the said order of requisition and allowed the writ application stating.
‘Having Considered the matter from all its aspects it appears to me that there has been no proper application of mind in passing the order. The order also does not look fair in view of the fact that there are scope of litigation between the parties over acquisition of the properly by private transfer. In the circumstances, the allegations made by Mr. Bose that this Is a case of mala fide and colourable exercise of power cannot be brushed aside. In this view of the matter this writ application succeeds and the Impugned order passed under section 3(1) of the Act hereby stands quashed.”
8. Keeping in view our findings aforementioned we are of the opinion that the purpose for which the purported requisition has been made being
not a public purpose and not for a purpose within the meaning of section 3 of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act-II of 1948) has rightly been quashed by the learned single Judge. The other appeal arises out of an order dated 13.3.99 passed in W.P. No. 1682 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge on an application filed by the appellant herein to the effect that keeping in view of the fact that the properly in question had been requisition by ihe Siate of West Bengal his client is not liable to pay the taxes which are sought to be recovered by the Calculla Municipal Corporation in the manner provided under sections 214 to 232 of the Act The learned single Judge held as follows :
“The fact remains to consider whether the petitioner nor the D.P.S. shall pay the municipal tax to the Corporation. It is true that the owner is liable to pay tax to the Corporation but since they have not derived any benefit from the Requisitioning Authority till date and the Requisitioning Authority is in occupation without paying any rent or occupation charges to the petitioner and there has been already a direction of the Division Bench upon the respondent No. 9 to pay the Municipal tax, therefore. In the above circumstances, the respondenl No. 9 is directed to pay the municipal tax as directed by the Division Bench for the quarter ending 1983 amounting to Rs. 74,404.80p. If there is any further outstanding arrears towards municipal tax, the petitioner shall have to obtain the order from the Appeal Court and arrange to pay the amount to the Municipal Auihority. For the rest period no such direction has been Issued by the Division Bench in the Appeal between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. If the petitioner is so advised they can file an application to obtain an appropriate order from the Division Bench for the rest of the period after proper notice to the Corporation.
9. As noticed hereinbefore the order of the acquisition dated 5.3.88 has already been quashed by the learned single Judge which is the subject matter of appeal in appeal from original order No. F.M.A. 1255 of 1990. Even in the appeal a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 3.2.92, inter alia, directed as follows :
“In this particular case the subject matter of the writ application was against an order of requisition of a flat. The learned trial Judge set aside the order of requisition. But Ihe learned trial Judge appointed a Special Officer for the purpose of holding the key of the said flat. After the writ application was allowed the appellant has preferred an appeal and that after taking several adjournments the appellant through his learned Advocate elected to have his application dismissed which was duly recorded by the Division Bench by the order dated December 7, 1988.
Since the appellant herein had chosen not to obtain any interim order and elected to have his application for stay dismissed, we can only direct the Special Officer to hand over the key to the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) who will hold the key as a Special Officer and shall keep the property as it is subject to the decision in the above appeal and shall not encumber, transfer and/or dispose of the flat in question without the leave of this Court. This order is passed keeping in mind the fact that in case the appeal is allowed, the relief, If any, obtained by the appellant cannot be made anfructuous.
The applications for stay already filed is disposed of as above.”
10. It is, therefore, evident that the possession of the premises in question pursuant to the order of requisition had been taken back from the State of West Bengal.
11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant being the owner of the property is bound to pay municipal rates and taxes particularly in view of the fact that the premises in question is a tenanted one. This aspect of the matter has been considered in the case of Saturday Club Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn. & Ors. reported In 1999 (1) CHN page 627, in the case of Machinnon Mackenzte & Co. Ltd. v. The Calcutta Municipal Corpn. & Ors. reported In and in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corpn. & Ors. v. Abdul Hallm Gaznaut Molla & Others .
12. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, had drawn our attention to the statements made in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the writ application and submitted on the basis thereof that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation could not have Issued an enhanced amount without revising the existing rate structure and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that In the 3rd quarter of 1982-83 the annual valuation made was Rs. 1,12,387/- whereas for the 3rd quarter 1988-89 which was the subject matter of the writ application the annual valuation was made a little above Rs. 1,35,000/-and so far as 3rd quarter of 1994-95 is concerned the annual valuation has been raised to Rs, 1,67,000/-, that is, 20% above the existing valuation. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that prior to the passing of the order notices had already been served. The only question which, therefore, survives in the writ application is as to whether the purported orders of revision made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are liable to be set aside on the ground of alleged non-compliance of principle of natural justice. The said question was undoubtedly fallen before the learned single Judge but keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore as also the observations of the learned single Judge we are of the opinion that no inference with the Impugned order is called for at this stage. The appellant herein in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge as also in view of the order passed by us now cannot set up the order of requisition as a defence to the enhanced valuation nor can question its liability to pay tax in view of the aforementioned decision of this Court. We are also of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is desirable that the writ application should itself be disposed of.
13. We, therefore, request the appropriate Bench to consider and dispose of the writ application at an early date preferably within a period of six weeks from date. Liberty is granted to they parties to file appropriate application before the learned single Judge and move the same.
14. Another question which may arises for consideration before the writ Court as to whether there can be any remission of tax as the property had been kept vacant in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the said petition.
15. For the reasons aforementioned, both the application along with the applications stand disposed of but in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Parties are entitled to have a xerox certified copy of this Judgment and order on a priority basis.
M.H.S. Ansari, J:–I agree.
16. Appeal disposed of