Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dwipendu Sarkar & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
27.02.2019
Item No.19
ad
W.P No. 3755(W) of 2019
Dwipendu Sarkar & Ors.
- Versus -
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Rabiuddin Ahmed,
Mr. Raish Ahmed
... For the petitioners
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee,
Mr. Fazlul Haque
... For the KMC
Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioners be kept on record.
The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the
following relief:
"a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent and each one of them to forthwith cause correction of
Municipal records by removing the names of the unknown persons as owner of premises and to consider the written representation dated 12.09.2018 and thereby take curative measures for correction of the record for Kolkata Municipal Corporation in connection to premises no.34/1B, Lower Range, Kolkata 700019 so far the name of the owners are concerned."
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that challenging the inaction on the part of the KMC authorities to act in compliance of an order dated 3rd February, 2014 passed in W.P 21992(W) of 2013, the petitioners preferred a further writ petition being W.P 12568(W) of 2018. In course of hearing of the said writ petition, an order passed by the Assessor Collector (South) on 3rd July, 2014 was produced before the Court. The said writ 2 petition was, accordingly, disposed of by an order dated 28th August, 2018 observing inter alia that in the event petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they would be at liberty to take appropriate steps.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 3rd July, 2014 passed by the respondent no.4, he contends that the issue was relegated to the Controller, Thika Tenancy. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed by the said authority on 9th of August, 2016. Annexing the said order passed by the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, the petitioners again approached the respondent no.4 by a representation dated 12th September, 2018 inter alia praying for rectification of the records. The said representation has, however, not been disposed of till date.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the KMC authorities denies and disputes the contention of the petitioners.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the issue needs to be relegated to the competent authority.
Accordingly, the respondent no.4 is directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 12th September, 2018, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.1 and other interested parties, if any and to take a decision, in accordance with law and to communicate the same to the petitioner no.1.
3
The above exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.4 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations levelled in the same shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)