od-2 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/2/2026 In APOT/128/2026 JAYDIP GANGULY Vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. BEFORE: The HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The HON'BLE JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE Date: 10th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Tanusree Das, Adv. Ms. Dipanwita Das, Adv. Mr. Rushali Chatterjee, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv. …for KMC. The Court: Despite service, none appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate, who appeared before the writ court, is engaged by this court. His appearance is regularised. GA/1/2026 is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Considering the averments in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the application, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. It is contended by the appellant that, due to failing health and poor financial condition he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation. GA/1/2026 is allowed. The appeal arises from the order dated 4th February, 2026 passed in WPO/910/2025. By the order impugned the learned Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that the admission of the annual valuation @ Rs.21,790/-had been obtained by the authority under coercion and threat. His Lordship was of the view that the authority had recorded on 8th April, 2 2024 that the appellant had admitted Rs.21,790/- to be the annual valuation. Thereafter, the appellant kept waiting for 21 days and on 30th April, 2024 the Assessor Collector [South] was informed that the appellant was forced to sign and write the word ‘agree’ in the order-sheet. According to His Lordship, in the absence of any specific statement as to who had forced the appellant to sign and accept the valuation, vague allegations in order to wriggle out of the acceptance of the annual valuation, could not be sustained. His Lordship was of the view that, the allegation required appreciation of disputed questions of facts, which the writ court could not go into. An order dated 8th April, 2024 passed by the KMC authority, was under challenge before His Lordship. By the said order dated 8th April, 2024, the appearance of the appellant was recorded. The DAC and KMC Inspector were heard and after a long discussion, the appellant agreed to accept the annual valuation proposed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with effect from 3rd quarter of 2012-2013 to be @ Rs.21,791/-. It was further recorded that, as per the report drawn by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation officials, new addition to the building was found. Accordingly, the appellant was requested to submit a detail of such addition. We have not been apprised as to what was the consequence of such direction. Whether the appellant had provided the detail of the addition to the building and what order was passed thereafter, are not on record. Although Mr. Chakraborty contends that based on the said annual valuation, demands were subsequently raised, but such demands were not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. In any event, the annual valuation can be challenged by way of an appeal. The disputed questions of facts as to whether the consent was forced from the appellant or whether the proposal of Rs.21,790/- of the KMC authorities as the annual valuation of the 3 premises were based on speculations and not on the parameters required under the law, etc. should be agitated before the appellate forum. The appellant submits that the final order of fixation of the annual valuation was not served upon the appellant. We direct the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to serve the same upon the appellant, to enable the appellant to prefer an appeal and the merits of the appeal shall be gone into by the appropriate authority. All the issues urged before us will be decided in the appeal. We do not make any observation on the issues involved on merits. The decision in P S Group Reality Ltd.& Anr. vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 WBLR (Cal) 916 does not apply to the facts of this case. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in RBF RIG Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Customs [Imports], Mumbai, reported in [2011] 3 SCC 573 is also not applicable in the instant case. With the above observations, both the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) (ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE, J.) pkd.