Jurisdictional facts control municipal valuation enhancement, and civil courts may test whether the statutory basis for assessment existed.

Municipal enhancement of valuation under Section 107(1)(c) depends on the existence of jurisdictional facts: the holding must have been incorrectly valued or assessed, and the error must arise from fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. A local authority of limited jurisdiction cannot make its own jurisdiction final by wrongly finding those preliminary facts. Finality language in Section 117 does not bar civil court scrutiny where jurisdiction is disputed, and Section 119 applies only to a valid assessment made within jurisdiction. The civil court may therefore examine whether the jurisdictional facts existed; if they did not, the enhancement is ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether the municipality could finally decide the preliminary facts that enabled enhancement of valuation and assessment under Section 107(1)(c) so as to bar civil court scrutiny.

Analysis: The power to enhance assessment under Section 107(1)(c) depended on the existence of jurisdictional facts, namely, that the holding had been incorrectly valued or assessed and that the incorrectness resulted from fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. A local authority of limited jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by an erroneous finding on such preliminary facts. The words making the committee's decision final in Section 117 did not make the municipality's assumption of jurisdiction immune from challenge, and Section 119 barred only objections to a valid assessment made within jurisdiction. The civil court was therefore competent to examine whether the jurisdictional facts actually existed, and if they did not, the enhancement was without authority.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to test the existence of the jurisdictional facts, the enhancement was ultra vires for want of such facts, and the appeal failed.

---