Dipali Naskar vs The Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 1420 Cal

 05     24.02
Ct No
 24
        2023                  In the High Court At Calcutta
AGM
                             Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                      Appellate Side

                                     WPA 16882 of 2021

                                 Dipali Naskar
                                      Vs
                       The Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal
                               Corporation & Ors


                Mr. Subir Banerjee,
                Md. Hossain,
                Mr. Shaunak Ghosh,
                                               ... For the Petitioner.

                Mr. Biswajit Mukheerjee,
                Ms. Tanushree Das Gupta,
                                               ... For the K.M.C.

                Mr. Souri Ghosal,
                Mr. Gourav Mukherjee,
                                               ... For the Intervenor.

                Mr. Sanatan Ghosh,
                Mr. Falguni Bandopadhyay,
                                         ... For the respondent No. 5.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30 th

October, 2009 passed by the Deputy Assessor Collector-V,

Tollygunge Tax Department, Kolkata Municipal

Corporation whereby the said respondent cancelled the

mutation of the premises no. 69A, Banerjee Para Lane.

The said cancellation was done allegedly relying upon the

judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

5th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 188 of 1995 pending

between the parties.

Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that

the impugned order is a non-speaking one. The learned

Additional District Judge did not pass any order for

cancellation of the mutation. The respondent authority

mis-read and mis-interpreted the order of the learned

Court and cancelled the mutation.

Learned advocate representing the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation places the order passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, 5 th Court, Alipore. It

has been submitted that the respondent authority was ad

idem with the view expressed by the learned Additional

District Judge, and accordingly thought it fit to cancel the

mutation of the subject premises.

It has however been submitted that mutation will

neither create nor extinguish title of either of the parties

and the rights of the parties will be decided by the learned

Court taking up the matter.

Learned advocate representing the private

respondent opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

According to the provisions of law, mutation is

meant for the purpose of identifying the person primarily

liable for payment of tax. Mutation neither creates nor

extinguishes title of any of the parties to the property.

The respondent authority interpreted the order

passed by the Additional District Judge and accepted the

views expressed by the learned Judge to cancel the order

of mutation.

At this stage, I am of the opinion that there is no

requirement to interfere with the impugned order.

It is however recorded that the said order will not

create any equity in favour of any of the parties to the

pending suit.

The learned Court below shall decide the suit on

merits without being influenced by the mutation that has

been effected in favour of a party.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record

expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J.)