Municipal appeal limitation and amalgamation relief: copy-obtaining time may be excluded, but final assessments cannot be reopened collaterally.

In municipal appeal limitation, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the assessment order may be excluded, but only for the period properly required and not for delay attributable to the appellant's default; a copying-fee schedule without lawful basis cannot defeat that exclusion. On amalgamation, the municipal provision was read as requiring the owner to physically effect amalgamation before assessment on that footing, and the Municipality could not ignore a valid request. However, relief could not be granted in a way that would indirectly reopen a separate assessment that had already attained finality for want of objection or appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time taken to obtain the copy of the assessment order could be excluded in computing limitation for the appeal under the municipal law. (ii) Whether the assessment of the two premises had to be made on the footing of amalgamation and whether the final assessment of the other holding prevented such relief.

Issue (i): Whether the time taken to obtain the copy of the assessment order could be excluded in computing limitation for the appeal under the municipal law.

Analysis: The appeal was subject to the special limitation under the municipal statute, with the Limitation Act applying to appeals. The Court held that the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" is wider than mere actual time taken and excludes only the period properly required, not delay attributable to the applicant's default. It further held that the copying-fee schedule relied upon by the Municipality had no lawful basis under the governing municipal framework, so the respondent was not disentitled to exclusion of the period spent in obtaining the copy.

Conclusion: The appeal before the lower appellate court was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment of the two premises had to be made on the footing of amalgamation and whether the final assessment of the other holding prevented such relief.

Analysis: The Court construed the municipal provision on amalgamation as leaving the initiative with the owner to physically amalgamate the holdings, after which the Chairman had to assess them on that basis. It held that the respondent had done all that was within its power to effect physical amalgamation, and the Municipality could not ignore the request and proceed as though no amalgamation had been sought. At the same time, the Court held that the separate valuation of the other holding had become final for want of objection or appeal, and that the present proceedings could not be used to indirectly reopen that final assessment.

Conclusion: The Municipality had erred in not assessing on the basis of amalgamation, but the respondent could not obtain relief that would disturb the final valuation of the other holding.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the assessment under challenge was affirmed, and the respondent could not secure a reassessment that would unsettle a valuation which had already become final.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal depends on timely filing with exclusion of copy-obtaining time, only delay not attributable to the appellant may be excluded; and where relief would necessarily reopen a separate assessment that has already attained finality, the Court will not grant it in collateral form.

---