Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dilip Chandra Chatterjee & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ... on 16 January, 2023
16.01.2023
Item Nos. 14 & 15.
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 2043 of 2022
with
I.A. No. CAN/1/2022
I.A. No. CAN/2/2022
And
M.A.T. 2048 of 2022
with
I.A. No. CAN/1/2022
I.A. No. CAN/2/2022
Dilip Chandra Chatterjee & Ors.
Vs
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee,
Mr. Sagnik Majumdar,
Ms. Dikshita Chomal,
Ms. Shalmoli Ghosh,
...for the appellants/writ petitioner in both
the appeals.
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee,
Mr. Anand Farmania,
...for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
These two appeals and the connected
applications arise out of the same set of facts and
hence have been taken up for hearing and disposal
together.
In re : CAN 1 of 2022 (in MAT 2048 of 2022)
MAT 2048 of 2022 is directed against a
judgment and order dated September 8, 2021 whereby
WPA 12116 of 2021 was disposed of. There is a delay
of 438 days in filing this appeal.
2
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we
are satisfied with the explanation furnished for the
delay. The delay is condoned.
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 (in MAT 2048 of 2022) is,
accordingly, disposed.
In re : CAN 1 of 2022 (in MAT 2043 of 2022)
MAT 2043 of 2022 is directed against an order
dated November 10, 2022 passed in CAN 1 of 2021 in
connection with WPA No.12116 of 2021, which was an
application for modification of the parent order dated
September 8, 2021. There is a delay of 10 days in
filing this appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we
are satisfied with the explanation furnished for the
delay. The delay is condoned.
I.A. CAN 1 of 2022 (in MAT 2043 of 2022) is
disposed of.
The appellants herein approached the learned
Single Judge by filing WPA 12116 of 2021, with the
grievance that the decision of the Board of
Administrators of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation
dated February 3, 2021, was not being implemented.
Basically, the grievance of the appellants herein was
that their premises was not being separated and
mutated by the Corporation. There is a partition
decree from a competent Civil Court. The property in
question has been partitioned by metes and bounds.
3
The learned Judge recorded the submission
made on behalf of the Corporation that a decision has
been taken to act in terms of the decision of the Board
of Administrators dated February 3, 2021. The formal
order was yet to be communicated to the writ
petitioners. The learned Judge disposed of the writ
petition with the following observations :-
"Under such circumstances,
nothing remains to be decided here
as the contentions of the petitioners
have been addressed by the
corporation. The corporation shall
issue a formal order indicating to the
petitioners about the implementation
of the decision of the Board of
Administrators with regard to the
mutation of the manes of the
petitioners in respect of their one-
third share in the land and the water
body.
The entire exercise shall be
completed by the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation within a period of eight
weeks from date of communication of
this order."
Since the issue of separation of the premises
and an allotment of a separate municipal number was
not covered by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed
an application for modification of the aforesaid order
which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by
4
an order dated November 10, 2022, which is the
subject matter of the Second Appeal. The said
application was disposed of with the following
observations :-
"On the first day when the
application was taken up, the
contention of Mr. Mukherjee, the
learned Advocate for the
Corporation, was that the
petitioners had already been
intimated that the water body
cannot be separately mutated in the
names of the co-sharers, but the
assessment book of the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation would record
the mutation against an assessee
number. This Court had directed
the Corporation to communicate the
decision with regard to the
petitioners' application for mutation
by its order dated September 8,
2021. Such order was passed on
the basis of the decision of the
Chairperson, Board of
Administrators dated February 3,
2021, which is at page 16 of the
application.
Under such circumstances, until
the Corporation communicates its
decision as per the direction of this
Court, nothing remains to be
decided in the modification
application. The modification
application is based on an
5
apprehension that the decision of
the Board of Administrators shall
not be carried out by the
Corporation.
In case the Corporation passes an
order, which is not satisfactory to
the petitioners, and is contrary to the
decision of the Board of
Administrators dated February 3,
2021, the remedy of the petitioners
would be to challenge the final order
to be passed as per the direction of
this Court in WPA No.12116 of 2021.
Before any decision is taken and
communicated to be petitioner after
the order of this court in WPA 12116
of 2021, no further orders can be
passed in this modification
application."
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the
first disposing of the writ petition and the second
disposing of the modification application, these two
appeals have been filed by the writ petitioners.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The issue appears to be a very simple one and not
complicated at all. Admittedly, the appellants have
demarcated, by construction of boundary wall, the
landed portion that they possess and occupy.
6
Admittedly, an assessee number has been allotted for
the said portion. The appellants now ask for a
separate municipal premises number for the said
portion.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for
the Corporation submits that it should be recorded
that once such separate municipal number is assigned
to the portion aforesaid, all disputes shall stand
resolved.
We direct the Corporation authorities to allot a
separate municipal premises number for the landed
portion of the premises in question which is in the
possession of and owned by the appellants as
indicated in a map at page 138 of the said petition.
This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from
the date of communication of this order to the
appropriate officer in the Corporation.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the
allegations contained in the stay applications are
deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.
M.A.T. 2043 of 2022 and M.A.T. 2048 of 2022
are, accordingly, disposed of along with the
applications being I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2022 (in MAT
2043 of 2022) and I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2022 (in MAT
2048 of 2022).
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, shall be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the
necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
