Binapani Samanta vs Ghatal Municipality & Ors on 8 November, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Binapani Samanta vs Ghatal Municipality & Ors on 8 November, 2013

Bench: Soumen Sen

                                  1

08.11.13
 72
 Basudev      W. P. 27424 (W) of 2013

                                   Binapani Samanta
                                             VS
                            Ghatal Municipality & Ors.

                    Mr. Subrata Ghosh,
                    Mr. S. Hazra
                                    - For the Petitioner.
                    Mr. Subroto Mookherjee,
                    Mr. Subrata Mukherjee
                                    - For the Respondent No. 1.

In spite of service none appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 to contest this application.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit property by virtue of a Deed of gift executed by the father of the petitioner on December 5, 1977 and thereafter the petitioner had her name mutated in the Records of Rights and the Land Department of the Government and had been paying rent regularly. The petitioner had also mutated her name in the Records of Municipality and had been paying tax regularly. The petitioner alleged that sometime in April, 2013, she came to learn from reliable sources that some other persons had their names mutated in the Records of Municipality and immediately thereafter an application was made on April 19, 2013 under the Right to Information Act. Following the same, the Municipality made available relevant information on April 29, 2013 informing that the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 have mutated their names. Immediately thereafter the petitioner made a representation on May 27, 2013 for reconsideration of the recording of names in favour of the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 on the ground stated in the letter dated May 27, 2013.

Since the respondents are not represented in Court in spite of notice and considering the averments made in the petition as well as the writ petition dated May 27, 2013 in my view the petitioner has been able to make out a case for consideration. Accordingly, the Chairman, Ghatal Municipality is directed to consider the representation dated May 27, 2013 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner and the private respondents within one week from passing of such order.

The order allowing mutation in favour of the private respondent shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the said representation. The private respondents are restrained from encumbering, alienating the property-in-question till the matter is decided by the Chairman, Ghatal Municipality in terms of the order passed by this Court.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.

Let photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Soumen Sen, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)