| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 4059 = 1958 SLD 4059 = 1958 PLD 47 |
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 256 of 1951, decided on 14th February 1957.
Presented By: Rahman, J
Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Kushtea v. Satish Chandra Saha and others 23 C W N 611 ; Chairman, Howra Municipality v. Ramsarup Serougee A I R 1926 Cal. 1073 and Chairman of the Rajpur Municipality v. Nagendra Nath Bagchi 23 C W N 475 ref. N. C. Choudhury for Appellant.
Second Appeal No. 256 of 1951, decided on 14th February 1957.
Presented By: Rahman, J
Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Kushtea v. Satish Chandra Saha and others 23 C W N 611 ; Chairman, Howra Municipality v. Ramsarup Serougee A I R 1926 Cal. 1073 and Chairman of the Rajpur Municipality v. Nagendra Nath Bagchi 23 C W N 475 ref. N. C. Choudhury for Appellant.
MONOMOHAN ROY-Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONERS OF CHANDPUR MUNICIPALITY and another-Respondents
Law: Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932)
Section: 133, 138 , 5I-S 133
Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932), Ss. 133, 138 & 5I-S 133, applicable only when general assessment is made --Assessment of particular holding-S. 138 (1) (a) applicable Assessment of particular holding made by Chairman-Illegal Chairman's authority under S.51 does not include powers to exercise functions of Commissioners. Section 133 of the Bengal Municipal Act refers to and is attracted only when a general assessment is being made on the holdings within a Municipality and not when a particular holding escaped assessment and is subsequently sought to be assessed. In a case where a particular holding as opposed to "all holdings within a Municipality" was sought to be assessed, and the assessment was made by the Chairman Held, that the assessment and valuation of the holding made by the Chairman and not by the Commissioners at a meeting, without following the provisions of section 138 sub section (1) was an illegal assessment. The Chairman could not in exercise of his powers under section 51 of the Act make an assessment of this kind,. as the authority given to the Chairman under section 51 of the Act did not include the power to exercise the functions of the Commissioners which c Id only be exercised by them under the Act at a meeting Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932), Ss. 148 & 151 ---Application for review remaining undisposed of for long time ground for, civil suit-Ss. 148 & 151 do not oust jurisdiction of Civil Court' where assessment not made in conformity with law. Where an application for review under section 148 of the Bengal Municipal Act by an assessee remains undisposed of for a long, time, the plain conclusion is that the Municipal authority was not minded to dispose of or finally determine the said application and that by itself not only amounted to a refusal to entertain it but was also a breach of a statutory duty provided by the Act which requires that every such application presented under section 148 shall be heard and determined, and, notwithstanding the pendency of the application for review under section 148 of the Act, the assessee, can bring a suit in civil Court for…