Calcutta High Court
Suman Saha vs The Kolkata Municipal on 24 February, 2023
OD-1
APOT /53/2023
IA No.GA/1/2023
WPO/3232/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
SUMAN SAHA
-Versus-
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Advocate.
Mr. Supratik Shyamal, Advocate,
Ms. Sonali Ghosh Basu, Advocate,
Ms. Sonali Sengupta, Advocate
...for the Appellant
Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate
for Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Date: February 24, 2023.
THE COURT: A judgment and order dated January 4, 2023,
whereby the appellant's writ petition was in effect dismissed, is under
challenge in this appeal.
The appellant approached the learned single Judge with a prayer for
a direction on Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to consider his
representation dated November 19, 2022 (Annexure P-5 to the application
for appropriate orders) for deleting the name of the respondent no. 4 from
the Inspection Book as lessee. The contention of the appellant before the
learned Single Judge was that the lease in favour of the respondent no. 4 has
expired long back and that respondent is in unauthorised occupation of the
concerned land. Hence, the name of the private respondent as lessee should
be deleted from the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The learned Judge opined that Kolkata Municipal Corporation will
not be the appropriate authority to adjudicate whether the private respondent
is a lessee or not, in respect of the concerned premises. The learned Judge
disposed of the writ petition by observing that it will be open to the
petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for necessary relief, if so
advised. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us by way of this
appeal.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner
says that the private respondent, after expiry of the lease that had been
granted in its favour, has no right, title or interest in respect of the concerned
land. It is in occupation of the concerned land unlawfully and also not
paying a farthing towards occupational charges. The KMC should at least
consider the representation made by the appellant.
Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation says that admittedly the private respondent is in occupation of
the concerned land. The Corporation is not concerned with the legal status of
the private respondent. So long as that respondent is in actual occupation, it
may not be proper to delete its name from the Corporation records. If the
appellant succeeds in evicting the private respondent from the concerned
land following due process of law, there will be no difficulty for the
Corporation to delete the name of the private respondent from its records.
We are of the view that since a representation has been made by the
appellant, there will be no harm in directing the Corporation to consider and
dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the private respondent and any other
concerned party or their authorised representatives. This exercise will be
completed by the Assessor Collector, Tolly Tax Department, KMC within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The appeal and the connected application (GA-1 of 2023) are
disposed of accordingly. We have not gone into the merits of this case.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations made in the
application for appropriate orders are deemed not to have been admitted by
the respondent.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)
dg/
