Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sailen Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 September, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.14072(W) of 2011
Sri Sailen Sarkar
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Biswadeb Ray Chaudhuri
Mr. Sourav Chaudhuri ....for the petitioner
Mr. Jahar Lal Dey
Mr. Shyamal Kumar Dey ...for the State
Mr. Soumik Mukherjee
Mr. Abhijit Ganguly ...for the Corporation
Mr. S. Dasgupta ...for the seventh - ninth respondents
Mr. A. Mukherjee Mr. Prangopal Das ....for the tenth respondent Heard on : September 7, 2011 Judgment on : September 7, 2011 The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated August 24, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief:
"a) A Writ or Writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2, The Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata to revoke/cancel the void Deed of Conveyance being No.00856 for the year 2010 Registered by the Additional Registrar of assurances-1, Kolkata where the consent of the petitioner being the co-sharer was not taken to consideration while registering such sale Deed of the undivided property meant for dwelling house situated at 93A, Motilal Gupta Road, Kolkata-700082."
The conveyance in question is dated May 18, 2007 and it is at p.32. By a lawyer's notice dated June 9, 2011 (at p.29) the petitioner called upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to cancel the mutation of the assessment records effected on the basis of the conveyance.
It was alleged in the notice that the vendors who executed the conveyance were not entitled to convey the property that devolved upon the heirs of the original owner, the father of the vendors and the petitioner. Now alleging that the conveyance was wrongfully executed, and that on the strength of the conveyance some antisocial elements of the locality are threatening to dispossess the petitioner of the property, this petition has been brought.
In my opinion, this is a totally misconceived petition. Power under art.226 is not to be exercised for deciding whether the conveyance should be declared void. Whether on the strength of the conveyance antisocial elements of the locality are threatening to dispossess the petitioner of the property in question is not to be decided by the Writ Court as well. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb