# [2007] 7 S.C.R. 430

- **Citation:** [2007] 7 S.C.R. 430
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5519-5520 of2004
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Markandey Ka Tju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2007-7-s-c-r-430-23179
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

West Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978-Amendment by West
Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994:
Constitutionality of-Held the Act of 1994 unconstitutional being
violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950-Amendments took
away right of assessee of a pre-decisional hearing and did not provide for
any effective hearing; review of valuation was provided but it was ineffective
remedy as Review Committee was not bound to follow principles of natural
D justice and assign reasons, inspite of it being a quasi judicial body; it was
more so as before taking recourse to review, a pre-deposit had to be made--
Review Committee consisted of authorities of Municipality and officers of
Board alone, whereas it should have been independent of both keeping in
view that its power was curtailed to 25% of valuation made by Board,
decision on valuation was that of Board itself and jurisdiction of civil court
E was barred, leaving open only remedy of judicial review which in view of
nature of disputed questions of fact, was very limited.
Valuation of land and buildings-Methodology-Constitutionality ofHeld-Valuation was a complex exercise requiring certain amount of expertise,
F and in determination thereof, it is not expected of a statutory authority to
take recourse to arbitrary, unscientific or haphazard course of action-On
facts, held that though proviso to Section 9 of 1978 Act, added by 1994 Act,
provided for valuation by a Valuer-Surveyor Grade I or II, Municipality
recruited casual employees to make door to door survey of properties and
on date collected there from valuation was determined by Board; those
G employee were neither experts nor trained, their qualifications were not
known, on what basis they could determine valuation of buildings and lands,
and who supervised their work was not disclosed-As a result of such
unscientific study valuation increasing ranging from 3954% to 137% resulting
in exorbitant increase in tax on public, which itself was indicative of
H
430
BIDHANNAGAll (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON 1•. CENTRAL VALUATION BOAllD
431
arbitrariness, and hence, violative of Article I 4 of Constitution of India, A
1950.
Members of the appellant association are occupiers of lands and
buildings situated within the territorial limits of a Municipality. Their annual
valuation for the purpose of assessment of municipal tax is governed by the
West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. In terms of Section 110 thereof, it was to B
be determined by the Central Valuation Board established under the West
Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978. It provided under Section 10(3)
that upon publication of the draft valuation list, objections were to be invited
and, if filed, considered by the Board upon giving an opportunity of hearing
in that behalf. Section 11 provided for publication of the final valuation list C
together with the amount of consolidated rate payable. Section 12 provided
that the Board could amend the valuation list at any time before the date
specified for filling objections under Section 10(2). Section 15 provided that
for hearing review applications, the State Government was to constitute
committee consisting of two members, the President thereof had to possess
the prescribed qualifications and the other member had to be one of the D
Councilors concerned. Section 15(3) gave a plenary power to review committee
to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the valuation of land or building.
West Bengal Central valuation Board (Amendment) Ad, 1994, inter
a/ia, made following changes to Act of 197S-{i) a proviso was added to Section
9 stating that the Board may, in accordance with a resolution in that behalf, E
and with the previous approval of the State Government, require a valuersurveyor grade I or II, to make, subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed, the general valuation of lands and buildings under its
superintendence, direction and control on payment of such remuneration as
it may determine, and every such

## Text

_Characters 0–36,951 of 74,038. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=36951 for what follows._

A
B
c
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON
l!
CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD AND ORS.
MAY 18,2007
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
West Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978-Amendment by West
Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994:
Constitutionality of-Held the Act of 1994 unconstitutional being
violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950-Amendments took
away right of assessee of a pre-decisional hearing and did not provide for
any effective hearing; review of valuation was provided but it was ineffective
remedy as Review Committee was not bound to follow principles of natural
D justice and assign reasons, inspite of it being a quasi judicial body; it was
more so as before taking recourse to review, a pre-deposit had to be made--
Review Committee consisted of authorities of Municipality and officers of
Board alone, whereas it should have been independent of both keeping in
view that its power was curtailed to 25% of valuation made by Board,
decision on valuation was that of Board itself and jurisdiction of civil court
E was barred, leaving open only remedy of judicial review which in view of
nature of disputed questions of fact, was very limited.
Valuation of land and buildings-Methodology-Constitutionality ofHeld-Valuation was a complex exercise requiring certain amount of expertise,
F and in determination thereof, it is not expected of a statutory authority to
take recourse to arbitrary, unscientific or haphazard course of action-On
facts, held that though proviso to Section 9 of 1978 Act, added by 1994 Act,
provided for valuation by a Valuer-Surveyor Grade I or II, Municipality
recruited casual employees to make door to door survey of properties and
on date collected there from valuation was determined by Board; those
G employee were neither experts nor trained, their qualifications were not
known, on what basis they could determine valuation of buildings and lands,
and who supervised their work was not disclosed-As a result of such
unscientific study valuation increasing ranging from 3954% to 137% resulting
in exorbitant increase in tax on public, which itself was indicative of
H
430
BIDHANNAGAll (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON 1•. CENTRAL VALUATION BOAllD
431
arbitrariness, and hence, violative of Article I 4 of Constitution of India, A
1950.
Members of the appellant association are occupiers of lands and
buildings situated within the territorial limits of a Municipality. Their annual
valuation for the purpose of assessment of municipal tax is governed by the
West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. In terms of Section 110 thereof, it was to B
be determined by the Central Valuation Board established under the West
Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978. It provided under Section 10(3)
that upon publication of the draft valuation list, objections were to be invited
and, if filed, considered by the Board upon giving an opportunity of hearing
in that behalf. Section 11 provided for publication of the final valuation list C
together with the amount of consolidated rate payable. Section 12 provided
that the Board could amend the valuation list at any time before the date
specified for filling objections under Section 10(2). Section 15 provided that
for hearing review applications, the State Government was to constitute
committee consisting of two members, the President thereof had to possess
the prescribed qualifications and the other member had to be one of the D
Councilors concerned. Section 15(3) gave a plenary power to review committee
to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the valuation of land or building.
West Bengal Central valuation Board (Amendment) Ad, 1994, inter
a/ia, made following changes to Act of 197S-{i) a proviso was added to Section
9 stating that the Board may, in accordance with a resolution in that behalf, E
and with the previous approval of the State Government, require a valuersurveyor grade I or II, to make, subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed, the general valuation of lands and buildings under its
superintendence, direction and control on payment of such remuneration as
it may determine, and every such valuation shall be deemed to have been made p
by the Board; {ii) Sections 10 and 12 were deleted; (iii) Section 15 was amended
to empower Municipality to constitute Review Committee; each of them to be
presided by the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality and
consisting of two Councillors of the Municipality and an officer of the Board
having knowledge in the assessment of municipal valuation; instead of
decisions by majority, they were required to be unanimous, and in case or G
difference of opinion, the matter was required to be referred back to the Board.
Also, in year 2002, the power of the Review Committee was curtailed to 25%
of the valuation made by the Board.
Aggrieved by the above Act of 1994, the appellant filed a writ petition H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 7 S.C.R.
A contending it was vi~lative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as
it deprived the citizens opportunity of being heard which is the essence of the
principles of natural justice as also lead to procedural unfairness. High Court
dismissed the petition on the grounds that (i) the requirements of compliance
of principles of natural justice have not completely been taken away; (ii) no
B case of substanti.ve unreasonableness has been made out; (iii) the restriction
put on the power of the Review Committee as also the extent to which such
power can be exercised do not lead to procedural unfairness; and (iv) validity
of constitution of the Review Committee cannot be faulted with. Hence, the
present appe2L
c
Appellant contended (i) it may be true that the Act of 1994 did not
exclude the rules of audi alteram partem completely and provided an
opportunity of hearing only at the stage of review, however, the provisions
thereof indicate that there is no procedural or substantive observance of the
principles of natural justice in the process of determinat_ion of annual
valuation; (ii) the opportunity of hearing at the stage of review of the
D assessment being a post-decisional one, the same does not compensate for
the requirements of a pre-decisional hearing; (iii) the valuation list prepared
E
F
by the Board showed that rio reason had been assigned in support thereof,
'
and it did not bear any real nexus with the factors prescribed by statute to be
taken into account in the matter of determination of annual valuation.
Respondent contended that the procedural fairness as also the principles
of natural justice were capable of being read in the provisions of the Act of
1994.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set
aside. The impugned Act is declared unconstitutional being violative of Article
14 oft he Constitution. [Para 51) (461-F)
1.2. The 1978 Act or even the Amending Act have not provided any
G guidelines. Guidelines are provided in the Municipality Act. When a statute
does not provide for procedural fairness, it may be ultra vires.
(Para 34) [456-D-E]
Dr. Balbir Singh v. Mis. MC.D. (1985) l SCC 167 and R. K. Kaura v.
Municipal Commr., MCD, (2005) 11 SCC 524, referred to.
H
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON ,._ CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD
433
1.3. Although the Court may not go into the question of a hardship which A
may be occasioned to the taxpayers but where a fair procedure has not been
laid down, validity thereof cannot be upheld. [Para 50) [461-E-FJ
Smith v. Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd. (Bar Council
intervening), [2006) 3 All ER 593, referred to.
1.4. When a substantive unreasonableness is to be found in a statute, it
may have to be declared unconstitutional. [Para 37) (457-G-HJ
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, [199311 SCC 78, Krishna Mohan (P)
Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., [200317 SCC 151, relied on
Dewan Dau/at Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980)
1 sec 685, referred to.
B
c
2.1. The effect of the amendments is inter alia to take away the right of
an assessee of a pre-decisional hearing. The provisions of the Amendment
Act only provide for a review of the valuation made by the Board as pre-- D
decisional hearing is not required to be given. (Para 131 (448-G-H)
2.2. In a case of this nature, provision for review was in effect and
substance a provision for appeal. But, when a provision for appeal has been
laid down, the same should, for all intent and purport, must provide for an E
effective-remedy. [Para 40] [459-C-D)
2.3. Principles of natural justice are based on two basic pillars: (i) Nobody
shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem) {ii) Nobody shall be judge
of his own cause (memo debet esse judex in pripria sua causa).
(Para 43) (459-G-H; 460-A] p
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) l SCC 664, Calcutta
Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn., (2003) 10 SCC
533, relied on.
2.4. Duty to assign reasons is, however, a judge made law. It is considered G
to be a third pillar. [Para 44) (460-A-B)
Union of India & Anr. etc. v. Tulsiram Patel etc. AIR (1985) SC 1416,
relied on.
Chief Security Officer & Ors. v. Singasan Rabi Das, [1991) 1SCC729, H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 7 S.C.R.
A Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 2004),
decided on 25th 'January, 2006; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2006) 11 SCALE 28, Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, (2006) 12
SCALE 58 and Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority, (2006) AIR
sew 4911, referred to.
B
2.5. A Review Committee being a quasi judicial body was required to
fulfill the requirements of the three conditions. There is furthermore no
reason whatsoever as to why the power of Review Committee was curtailed
only to the extent of 25%. It is furthermore beyond any logic as to why rule
of simple majority in a multi-member committee could not be applied.
C
(Para 45) (460-B-C)
AM (Serbia) & Ors. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,
(2007) EWCA Civ. 16, referred to.
2.6. The proviso appended to Section 14 of the 1978 Act makes the
D situation worse inasmuch as before taking recourse to the review provision
a pre-deposit is to be made in terms thereof. A statute which provides for civil
or evil consequences must conform to the test ofreasonableness, fairness
and non-arbitrariness. [Para 28) [453-A-B)
2.7. Ordinarily an order entailing civil consequences should be
E preceded by an opportunity of being heard. The impugned Act, however, has
taken away such a provision which existed in the earlier one.
F
G
H
(Para 29) (453-B-C)
Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. D.C.l T. and Ors., [2007) 2 SCC 181, referred
to.
1.8. The provisions for review conferred in terms of the statute for all
intent and purport are illusory ones and do not satisfy the test of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. No statute which takes away somebody.'s right
and/or imposes duties, can be upheld where for all intent and purport, there
does not exist any provision for effective hearing. [Para 47) (461-B-C)
3.1. In view of the mode and manner in which the general valuation had
been prepared without giving an opportunity of hearing and/or in any event
without even asking the residents of the area in general to have their say, the
provisions of the 1978 Act are required to be construed.
[Para 10) (451-A)
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON v. CENTRAL v ALUA non BOARD
435
3.2. It may be that the legislature thought that while preparing the A
general valuation, it may not be possible to give an opportunity of hearing as
such and, an opportunity of hearing may be given at a later stage. It is true
that an order of assessment under the Act is conclusive subject to Sections
14 and 15 of the Act but keeping in view the limited power conferred upon
the Revenue Committee there under in terms whereof a part of demand is
beyond the pale thereof, it is possible that in a given case the entire exercise B
of review may end in futility. What, thus, was necessary was to provide for an
independent and impartial body constituted for the general redressal of the
grievance of the taxpayers. [Para 30) (453-C-D)
3.3. The Committee should not have consisted of the authorities of the C
Municipality and the officers of the Board alone. Section 15 does n-0t provide
for any expertise on the part of the Councillors to determine the objections.
As many committees as the Municipality likes may be constituted. Rationality
in the decision is, thus, not guaranteed. [Para 31) (453-E]
3.4. The provisions are per se unreasonable and arbitrary. The Review D
. Committee is not independent of the Municipality or the Board. Whereas
under the 1978 Act, a person having the requisite knowledge was to be
appointed by the State Government as Chairman of the Review Committee,
the affairs of the Review Committee are controlled only by the Municipality
concerned and the Board under the Amendment Act. The Municipality E
essentially is interested in increase in valuation of lands and buildings as it
would fetch more income to its coffers. It is unthinkable that although the
power to make annual valuation is not to be preceded by an opportunity of
being heard to the person who would be affected thereby, the power of the
Review Committee has been curtailed to 25% of the valuation made by the
Board. The members are not independent person and each one of them is, in F
one way or the other, interested in the matter. Even the officer nominated by
the Board who is said to be an expert might have something to do with the
annual valuation of the area in question. In any event, the effect of the
amendment is that annual valuation is to be made by the Board, then the
objections are to be heard by a Committee which again consists of members
of the Municipality and the Board, and in the event, the decision is not G
unanimous, the matter again goes back to the Board.
[Para 26] [452-C-F]
3.5. This provision is akin to the well-known doctrine of Caesar to
Caesar, It per se contravenes the values attached to the principles of natural H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 7 S.C.R.
A justice. Even the jurisdiction of civil court is barred and, thus, the only remedy
which would be available to the taxpayer would be to take recourse to judicial
review. Its application in the matter of this nature where disputed questions
of fact may arise for its determination, would be very limited. It is unfortunate
that the Division Bench opined, although there was no provision therefor, that
in case of any final decision of the Board, the taxpayer can go back to the
B Review Committee. (Para 27) (452-F-H)
Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277, referred to.
3.6. It is one of those statutes where a decision is rendered by a body
C which may have an institutional bias although same is not ordinarily
contemplated in the case of an individual member being a part of a body.
(Para 48) (461-C-D)
Dr. Bonham's case 8 Co Rep, 113 at 118 referred to.
D
4.1. Valuation of lands and buildings is a complex exercise. It requires
certain amount of expertise. Valuation is ma(je upon obtaining data prepared
from a scientific study. Valuation of.a land or building would depend upon
several factors. Several methods of valuation may be applied for determination
thereof. It is for the expert ordinarily to arrive at a decision as to which mode
of valuation having regard to a particular set of factors would entail a correct
E evaluation. However, in determining the valuation of a land or building, it is
not expected of a statutory authority to take recourse to the course of action
which may be arbitrary, unscientific or haphazard in nature.
(Para 14) (449-B-C)
4.2. The proviso appended to Section 9 of the 1978 Act is an enabling
F provision in terms whereof general valuation of lands and buildings in the
area as aforesaid or in any part thereof made by a Valuer-Surveyor Grade I
or Valuer-Surveyor of Grade II, however, shall be under the superintendence,
direction and control of the Board. Admittedly, no such exercise had been
undertaken. (Para 13) [449-A-B]
G
4.3. Although the proviso appended to Section 9 of the 1978 Act provided
for certain safeguards and as thereby a legal fiction has been created, the
same is optional. The Board is not bound to take recourse thereto. Who would
be the surveyors eligible for carrying out the survey requires prior approval
of the State. Instead and place of appointing experts in the field, only casual
H employees were recruited by the Municipality, who made door to door survey
\
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE AS SON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD
437
of the properties situated within the area of Bidhannagar Municipality and A
collected the purported datas of the concerned premises in a field book
wherefrom an inspection book was prepared and only on the basis thereof
valuation was determined by the Board. Such a course of action was not
contemplated by law. [Para 14) [449-C-D)
4.4. No person was appointed who had an expertise in the field. The B
casual employees appointed were not trained personnel. Their qualifications
.,,i
are not known. On what basis they could determine the valuation of the
.,
buildings and lands has also not been disclosed. They, being not government
servants, ordinarily would not have the power to enter into the premi!.es .of
persons so as to infringe the right of privacy which is otherwise granted to c
an authority under the 1978 Act. (Para 19) [450-G-H]
4.5. The Board delegated its power to the Municipality which was
impermissible in law. It had no control over the recruitments made by the
Municipality. Probably it even did not have any control over their work. Who
had been supervising the job of the said casual employees has not been D
disclosed. (Para 17) (450-C-D)
4.6. The result of such an unscientific study may produce a disastrous
result and in fact from the pattern of increase in demands by the Bidhanagar
Municipality it appears that the increase in the valuation ranges from 3954%,
i.e. 39.5 times to 137%, i.e., 1.4. times. Such exorbitant increase in tte tax E
on the public is itself indicative of arbitrariness, and hence, violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. In a democracy, the people are supreme, and all
authorities must function for the public welfare. Excessive increase in the
tax burden on the public is surely not for the public welfare. Also, in the
aforementioned context, the very method applied by the Municipality and the F
1
Central Valuation Board must be held to be arbitrary in nature and hence
violative of the Constitution. (Para 18) [450-D-F]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR (1978) SC 597, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5519-5520 of2004. G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.12.2003 of the Division
Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, in MAT No. 3359 of2000 and 3674 of
,.
2000.
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rana Mukharjee, Siddarth Gautam, Goowill H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 7 S.C.R.
A Indeevar for the Appellants.
B
R. Mohan, ASG., Altaf Ahmad Sr. Adv H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K.
Puri, Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Validity or otherwise of certain provisions of the West
Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, I994 (for short "the
Amendment Act") is in question in these appeals which arise out of a
judgment and order dated 24.12.2(,J3 passed by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Calcutta dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and,
C thus, upholding the impugned provisions thereof.
2. Members· of the appellant association are occupiers of lands and
buildings situated within the territorial limits of the Bidhannagar Municipality.
Annual valuation of lands and buildings for the purpose of assessment of
municipal tax indisputably is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal
D Municipal Act, I 993 (for short "the Municipal Act"). In terms of Section I I 0
thereof, the annual valuation of lands and buildings is required to be detennined
by the Central Valuation Board (for short "the Board"). The Board was
established under the provisions of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board
Act, I978 (for short "the I978 Act").
E
F
3. Valuation of the holdings used to be governed by Sections 10, I I and
12 of the I978 Act. Before we embark upon a detailed analysis of the provisions
thereof, we may notice that they provided for publication of the draft valuation
list, publication of the final valuation list and amendment of valuation of the
list by the Board respectively.
4. Principles of natural justice were to be complied with in tenns of Subsection (3) of Section IO insofar as upon publication of the draft valuation
list, objections were invited and objections, if filed, were required to be
considered by the Board for detennination thereofupon giving an opportunity
of being heard in that behalf. Section I I provided for publication of the final
G valuation list together with the amount of consolidated rate payable after
determination of the objections filed under Section I 0. The final valuation list,
so arrived, could be subject to further review in tenns of Sections I4 and 15
of the Act.
H
5. By reason of the impugned amendment, alterations on three principal
BIDHANNAGAR (SALTLAKE) WELFARE ASSON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD [S.B. SINHA.!.) 439
fields were made, i.e., the provisions relating to publication of the draft A
valuation list of lands and buildings and finalization thereof, upon hearing
objections thereto were deleted. The West Bengal Central Valuation Board
(Valuation of Lands and Building) Rules, 1984 (for short "the 1984 Rules")
framed under the 1978 Act were also amended by a notification dated 30.03.1984
wherein provisions pertaining to filing objection petitions against the draft B
annual valuation and determination thereof were deleted. The effect of the
said amendment was that the valuation made by the Board was made final,
subject to review as provided for under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1978 Act.
6. Contending that the said Amendment Act is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India as it deprived the citizens of being heard which C
is the essence of the principles of natural justice as also lead to procedural
unfairness, a writ petition was filed by the appellant. The said writ petition
was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. In arriving at its
conclusion, the learned Judge took notice of the contentions raised by the
respondents in their counter-affidavits as also other factors relevant for
determination thereof at some details. An intra-court appeal was preferred D
thereagainst in terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Calcutta
High Court and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2003, th~
said appeal has been allowed.
7. The High Court opined:
(i)
The requirements of compliance of principles of natura1 justice
have not completely been taken away.
E
(ii) No case of substantive unreasonableness has been made out.
(fu) In the matter of collection of debt for the purpose of arriving at
a general valuation as also for the purpose of determining the F
objections by the owners and occupiers of the lands and the
buildings, the restrictions put on the power of the Review
Committee as also the extent to which such power can be exercised
do not lead to procedural unfairness; and
(iv) Validity of constitution of the Review Committee cannot also be G
faulted with.
8. Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court committed
a serious error in construing the provisions of the impugned Amending Act
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 7 S.C.R.
...
A insofar as it failed to take into consideration the following:
,....
(i)
The valuation list prepared by the Board and produced in course
of the hearing before the learned Single Judge clearly showed
that no reason had been assigned in support thereof, and in any
event, the same did not bear any real nexus with the factors to
B
be taken into account in the matter of determination of annual
valuation as provided under Section I 06 of the Municipal Act.
(ii)
It may be true that the Amending Act did not exclude the rules
of audi alteram partem completely and sought to provide an
opportunity of hearing only at the stage ofreview. However, the
c
provisions thereof would clearly indicate that there is no procedural
or substantive observance of the principles of natural justice in
the proce.;,s of determination of annual valuation.
(tii) Opportunity of hearing at the stage of review of the assessment
being a post-decisional one, the same does not compensate for
D
the requirements of a pre-decisional hearing.
9. Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the State of We-;t Bengal and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Valuation Board, on the other
hand, would submit that the procedural fairness as also the principles of
E natural justice being capable of being read in the provisions of the Amendment
Act, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in passing
the impugned judgment.
IO. Assessment of property tax used to be governed by the Bengal
F
Municipal Act, 1932. However, the State of West Bengal enacted the 1978 Act
Inter alia for constitution ofa Central Valuation Board and Valuation Authorities
\
for the purpose of valuation of lands and buildings in West Bengal. By reason
I\
of the said provision, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Committees
to make valuation of the lands and buildings which were exigible to levy of
property tax was taken away.
G
I I. A Comparative table showing relevant provisions of the I 978 Act
and the impugned Amendment Act is as under:
-*.
~
'
-;
BIDHA.,'NAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE AS SON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD [S.B. Slr..ll.\. J J 441
The 1978 Act
5. Members of the Board: (l) The
Board shall consist of a Chairman
and two other members to be
appointed by the State Govt.
(2) The Chairman shall be a person
who is or has been an officer of the
State Govt. not below the rank of a
Secretary.
(3) Of the two other members
(a) one shall be a person who is or
has been a member of the judicial
service for not less than 7 years and
has experience in municipal affairs;
and
(b) the other shall be a person
holding a degree in Civil Engineering
and
having
knowledge
and
experience in the work of valuation
and assessment for not less than
seven years.
(4) The Chairman and the other
members of the Board shall hold
office for such period not exceeding
six years as the State Government
may detenuine and the terms and
conditions or their service including
salaries and allowances shall be
such as may be prescribed.
The Amendment Act
5. Members of the Board (1) The
Board shall consist of a Chairman
and four other members to be
appointed by the State Govt.
(2) The Chairman shall be a person
who is or has been an officer of the
State Govt. (not below the rank of
Secretary including ex-officio
Secretary).
(3) The four other members shall
include the Director of Local Bodies,
Government of West Bengal, who
shall be the ex-officio member of the
Board, and such other officers of the
State Government or non-official
experts having knowledge and
experience in the field of judiciary,
Engineering,
Valuation
and
Assessment of properties, economics
or social science as the State
Government may determine.
( 4) The Chairman and the other
members of the Board shall hold
office for such period not exceeding
four years as the State Government
may determine and the terms and
conditions of their service, including
salaries and allowances shall be such
as may be prescribed.
(5) The Board shall have a MemberSecretary who shall be appointed by
the State Government from amongst
the members referred to in subsection (3) and shall be the Chief
Executive Officer of the Board.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 7 S.C.R.
A
B
SA. Validation Notwithstanding
anything contained elsewhere in this
Act, no action of the· Board shall be
invalid or otherwise called in question
merely on the ground of the
existence of any vacancy (initial or
subsequent) in the office of the
members of t\le Board.
8. Expenditure incurred on account
of salaries and allowances The
C
expenditure incurred by the Board
for meeting the salaries and
allowances of the Chairman, the other
members, the Secretary and Officers
and employees serving under the
Board shall be defrayed out of the
D
Fund.
E
F
l G
IO. Preparation of the draft valuation
list (I) When the valuation under
Sec. 9 of the lands and buildings in
any area has been completed, the
Board shall cause such valuation to
be entered in a list.
H
/
SA. Validation Notwithstanding
anything contained elsewhere in this
Act, no action of the Board shall be
invalid or otherwise called in question
merely on the ground of the existence
of any
vacancy
(initial
or
subsequent) in the office of the
members of the Board.
.
8. Expenditure incurred on account
of salaries and allowances
The
expenditure incurred by the Board
for meeting the salaries and
allowances of the Chairman, the other
members, the Secretary and Officers
and employees serving under the
Board shall be defrayed out of the
Fund.
8A. The Board shall maintain the
prescribed manner a register of
registered valuer surveyors (Gr. I) and
registered valuer Surveyors (Gr. ~).
8B. Every person who possess such ,
qualifications as may be prescribed
shall, subject to such terms and
conditions and on payment of such
fee, as may be prescribed, be entitled
to have his name entpred in the
register of registered valuer
surveyors (Gr. I) and registered valuer
surveyors (Gr. II);
10.***
-- /'·
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD [S.B. SINHA. J] 44 3
(2) The Board shall publish the
valuation list in such manner as may
be prescribed and shall specify a
date within which objections to the .
list may be filed.
(3) After the expiry of the date
specified in sub-sec (2) and within
the objection shall be determined,
after giving the objector an
opportunity of being heard by such
officer or officers of the Board as it
may specify in this behalf.
(4) The objection shall be filed and
determined in such manner as may
be prescribed.
A
B
c
D
11. Publication of final valuation list
11. Publication of final valuation list
When objections 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 consolidated rate thereon)
as recorded in the final valuation list
shall, subject to the provisions of
Sections 14 and 15, be conclusive.
When the general valuation of lands
and buildings has been made by the
Board under Sec. 9, the Board shall
prepare a valuation list and shall give
public notice of the place or places
where the valuation list may be
inspected, and the valuation as
aforesaid together with the amount
of consolidated rate or property tax,
as the case may be, payable thereon,
as recorded in the valuation list shall,
subject to the provisions of Sections
E
F
14 & 15 be conclusive. The Board
shall give a notice in writing to the G
owner or to the lessee, sub-lessee or
occupier of any land or building, as
the case may be, in all case in which
the valuation of such land or buikiing
is made for the first time or the annual
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 7 S.C.R.
A
B
c
valuation of such land or building as
increased: Provided that the valuation
. list as aforesaid may be prepared and
published in respect of all the
holdings of any municipal area or any
area within the jurisdiction of a
Corporation specified in the
notification under sub-sec (1) of Sec
9 or the holdings Of any municipal
area within such group of wards or
any area within such group of wards
within the jurisdiction of a
Corporation as the State Government
may determine.
12. Amendment of Valuation list by
12. *"'**
D
Board-The Board may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, amend the
valuation list at any time before the
date specified for filing objections
under sub-sec (2) of Section 10.
E
F
G
H
12A. Alteration or amendment of
valuation list (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in Sec 11, the
Board may at any time before the
date of hearing of an application for
review under Section 14 and for
reasons to be recorded in writing,
direct any alteration or amendment of
the valuation list : -
(a) by inserting therein the name of
any person whose name ought to be
inserted; or
(b) by inserting therein any land or
building previously omitted together
,-_ -
with the valuation thereof; or
-
BIDHANNAGAR.(SALT I.AKE) WELFARE ASSON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD [S.B. SINHA, l.) 445
14. Application for review -
(1) The owner or occupier or any
other· person primarily liable to pay
consolidated rate may, if dissatisfied
with the valuation of any land or.
building as entered in the final
valuation list, apply to the Board to
review the valuation.
(2) The application shall be filed
within such time and in such manner
as may be prescribed.
(3) Every application presented
under sub-sec ( l) shall be heard and
determined by a Review Committee
constituted under Sec 1 S in
accordance with such procedure as
may be prescribed.
(4) No application shall be
entertained unless the amount of
consolidated rate as recorded in the
final valuation list referred to in Sec
11 has been paid or deposited in the
(c) by striking out the name of any A
person or any land or building not
liable for payment of consolidated rate
or property tax, as the case may be;
or
(d) by increasing or decreasing the
annual valuation of any holding
which, in the opinion, of the Board,
has been substantially under-valued
or over-valued by reasons of fraud,
mis-representation, mistake or error.
14. Application for review
(I) The owner or occupier or any
other person primarily liable to pay
consolidated rate for property tax, as
the case may be, may if dissatisfied
with the valuation of any land or
building as entered in the valuation
list, apply to the Corporation or the
Board of Councillors concerned 'to
review the valuation.
(2) The application shall be filed
within such time and in such manner
as may be prescribed.
(3) Every application presented under
sub-sec ( l) shall be heard and
determined by a Review Committee
constituted under Sec
l S in
accordance with such procedure as
may be prescribed.
(4) No application u/sub-sec (l) shall
be entertained unless the amount of
consolidated rate or property tax, as
the case may be, on the previous
valuation of land or building as
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 7 S.C.R.
A
office of the Corporation or the
Municipality, as the case may be,
before the application is filed and
the application shall fail unless
amount is continued to be paid or
aforesaid has been paid or deposited
in the office of the Corporation or
Municipality, as the case may be,
before the application is filed, and
every such application shall fail unless
the amount of consolidated rate or
property tax as the case may be on
the previous valuation as aforesaid is
continued to be ,e_d or deposited in
the Office of the Corporation or
Municipality, as the case may be, till
such application is disposed of.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
deposited till the application is
finally disposed of.
15. Review Committee-(!) The State
Government shall constitute such
number of Review Committee as may
be considered necessary to hear the
applications filed under sub-section
(I) of Section 14.
Provided that wherever the previous
valuation refers to a valuation made
under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932
(Bengal Act XV of 1932), and in force
on the date immediately before the
commencement of the West Bengal
Municipal Act, 1993 (West Bengal Act
XXII of 1993), no application under
sub-section (1) shall be entertained
unless the amount of consolidated rate
on such previous valuation has been
paid or deposited or is continued to
be paid or deposited in the office of
the concerned Municipality.
15. Review Committee - Every
Corporation or Municipality shall, by
a resolution constitute Review
Committee (s) to hear applications
presented under sub-sec (I) of Sec
14.
(2) Each such Review Committee (2) Every Review Committee shall be
shall consist of two members of presided over by the Chairman or the
whom one shall be its President. The Vice-Chairman of the Municipality and
President of each Review Committee shall consist of two other members,
shall be appointed by the State Govt.
being Councillors of the Municipality,
'
I
..
BIDHANNAGAR (SALT LAKE) WELFARE ASSON v. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD (S.B. SINHA, J.] 44 7
on such terms and conditions and
_., shall possess such qualifications as
may be prescribed.