Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Immediately on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed his objection to such proposed change of ownership in the Municipal record by contending inter alia that since the petitioner who is the absolute owner of the said property is in possession thereof and the said property was never a thika tenanted property, alteration in the Municipal records as proposed is not necessary. A copy of the said objection was also given to the Thika Controller, Calcutta.

3. Since neither the Kolkata Municipal Corporation nor the Thika Controller took any step to redress the grievance of the petitioner against such illegal attempt for recording the proposed change of ownership in the Municipal record, the petitioner moved this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke, cancel, rescind and/ or set aside the notice dated 9th January, 2001 issued by the Thika Controller to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and also for restraining the Municipal authorities from acting on the basis of the said notice of the Thika Controller.

10. It appears from the said order that the Thika Controller held that the suit property was vested with the State with effect from 18th January, 1982 by operation of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. The said conclusion was arrived at by the Thika Controller only on the basis of the Municipal record which discloses that there are four blocks of structure in the said premises and all the structures are "Kancha", i.e., made of asbestos, tiles, darma and corrugated shade. Considering the nature ofsuch construction the Thika Controller came to a finding that such constructions cannot be stated as "Pucca" construction. The Thika Controller further held that out of these four blocks, three blocks were let out to others who erected structure; one block which was under the "Khas" possession of the writ petitioner containing "Kancha" structures, was let out to several "bharatias".

11. On the basis of such findings, the Thika Controller held that the three blocks wherein tenants of the land have erected "Kancha" structures, were vested with the State under the provision of Clause (a) of Section 5 of the said Act remaining portion where the owner of the land erected several "Kancha" structures and let out to the tenants, was vested under Clause (b) of Section 5 of the said Act.

12. In fact, when the said order was brought to the notice of Justice Barin Ghosh (as His Lordship then was), at the time of extension of the interim order, His Lordship in the order dated 18th December, 2001 recorded His Lordship's dissatisfaction and surprise about the said order of the Thika Controller, as the Thika Controller arrived at its conclusion without mentioning any single piece of evidence on the basis whereof any person can come to the conclusion that the petitioner or his successor created a Thika Tenancy over the property in question. Accordingly, the Controller, Calcutta Thika Tenancy was directed to produce the entire records in his possession three weeks after the reopening of the Court after the ensuing X'mas vacation to demonstrate that either the petitioner or his predecessor did create any Thika Tenancy in any part of property in question.

27. Thus, since the Thika Controller was not vested with such power of adjudication under the said Act, the entire proceeding became non est in the eye of law for inherent lack of jurisdiction of the authority which initiated the said proceeding. It appears from the order dated 12th July, 2001 passed by the Thika, Controller that the Thika Controller was very much aware of his jurisdiction and accordingly the Controller recorded in the said order that though he has no jurisdiction to consider such a dispute, still then such dispute was considered by him in terms of the direction of this Court.