Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.@mdashThe petitioner No. 1 claims to be an Association of middle-class house owners in West Bengal. The petitioner
Nos. 2 and 3 are described as the President and the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association. The petitioner No. 4 is a member of the
petitioner No. 1 Association, On 26th March, 1982 the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta had given u/s 178 of the Calcutta Municipal Act,
1951 a public notice that the valuation of the lands and buildings in Ward No. 95 made u/s 172 of the said Act, had been completed. The
petitioners in this writ application have challenged the said valuation list of lands and buildings in Ward No. 95. The grievance of the petitioners is
that the valuation of the buildings in Ward No. 95 have been arbitrarily increased without following any rational principle. Further, according to the
petitioners, the said increases have been made in discriminatory and arbitrary manner. Having heard the learned advocates for both parties. I am
not inclined to entertain this writ petition because the owners and the occupiers of the buildings in Ward No. 95 have adequate alternative
remedies, against the purported increases of valuation of their buildings. Under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951
for the purpose of assessment to the consolidated rates, the annual values of the lands and buildings are required to be determined by ascertaining
the gross annual rents at which the lands and buildings are reasonably expected to let subject to certain admissible allowances in case of buildings.
In all cases in which the land or building is valued for the first time or at the time when the objection to previous valuation pending for decision or is
valued after cancellation of previous valuation or in which the valuation of any land or building previously valued is increased u/s 172, the
Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta is bound to give u/s 182 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 special notice to the owner and the occupier
of the said holding. When the valuation is so increased, the said notice shall contain the statements of the grounds of such increase.
2. Any person who is dissatisfied with the valuation made under Chapter-XI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 may deliver within the prescribed
time at the municipal office a written notice u/s 181 stating the grounds of his objection to such valuation. The Commissioner or a Deputy
Commissioner or an officer specially empowered by the State Government shall hear u/s 182 of the said Act the objection after giving notice to the
objector of the time and place at which his objection would be investigated. Any person dissatisfied by any order u/s 182 of the said Act may
appeal within the prescribed time u/s 183(1) to the Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction. An appeal from a decision made by the Court of
Small Causes lies to the High Court.
3. The substance of the petitioners'' grievance in this writ application is when the increases in the valuation have been made u/s 172 of the Act
without any reference to the gross annual rental at which the buildings might be reasonably expected to let. In other words, the question the
correctness of the determination of the gross annual rental of the buildings situated in Ward No. 95. I have already referred to the provisions of the
Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 which elaborately provide for filing objections against such valuation determined u/s 172 of the Calcutta Municipal
Act, 1951. At this stage, I may record that although the Corporation of Calcutta has not fled any affidavit-in-opposition, they have sought to rely
on the provisions contained in the Assessment and Collection Manual which, however, have no statutory force. They have also purported to rely
upon the entries made in the Inspection Books of the different holdings in Ward No. 95 in order to justify ''the increases in their valuation. In order
to decide whether the valuations have been really made on the basis of the gross annual rental at which the buildings might be reasonably expected
to let, it would be necessary to allow the parties to give evidence. For the same reason without recording evidence in respect of individual holdings
in Ward No. 95, it would not be possible to pronounce whether the valuation of the holding or holdings have been made in an arbitrary and
discriminatory manner. This writ petition does not also disclose all the relevant materials. On the other hand, persons who might feel aggrieved by
the said determination of valuation of the buildings made u/s 172 of the Calcutta Municipal Act have more efficacious and effective remedy under
the statute. An aggrieved person is at liberty to file objections and thereafter to prefer appeals provided under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.
4. The petitioners have not questioned the jurisdiction or authority of the Corporation of Calcutta to determine under Sec. 172 of the Calcutta
Municipal Act, 1951 the valuation of holdings in Ward No. 95. They do not also contend that the entire Valuation List prepared u/s 172 is ultra
vires and in disregard of the mandatory provisions of law. As already stated, the substance of the petitioner''s grievance is that the value of the
individual buildings in Ward No. 95 have been arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner increased. I have already pointed out that the persons
who feel aggrieved thereby, ought to avail of remedies provided in the Calcutta Municipal Act itself. For the foregoing reasons, I reject this
application. I, however, express no opinion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the increases in the valuation of the individual buildings in
Ward No. 95. Nothing observed by me will prevent the individual owners or occupiers from filing objections u/s 181 of the Calcutta Municipal
Act, 1951 or from thereafter preferring appeals u/s 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.