JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the entry made in the Assessment Register of the Chandernagore Municipal Corporation in the year 1989-90. In Serial No. 628, the petitioner's holding was described as consisting of one pond. This has since been objected to by the petitioner. Special Officer was appointed who had submitted his report. No objection was taken to the' report by either of the parties. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that by reason of such entry the Municipal Corporation may not sanction his building plan. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that in the petitioner's own Sale Deed description of the property included the description of the pond. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Amendment Act, 1993 by which Section17A was introduced in the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 with regard to conversion of fisheries. The said provision provides the conversion of fisheries measuring about 5 cottahs or more. Whereas in the present case, the area of the land is about 9 cottahs 477 sq. ft. of which according to the Special Officer's report 55% is solid land and 45% is under one feet deep water. The 45% is supposed to be less than 5 cottahs and is not prohibited for being converted. 3. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the said question. The question of conversion is also not before this Court nor it is involved in this case. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the entry of pond in the Assessment Register should be removed. The Assessment is neither a document of title nor a document of possession. It is also inadmissible in evidence. 4. The entry in the Municipal Assessment Register is not an entry admissible in evidence within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Such entry can at best be a hearsay evidence and as such inadmissible. In (1) Durgabala v. Nityananda, 59 CWN 367, this Court had held that an entry made under Section 143 of the Calcutta Municipal Act in the Assessment Register was inadmissible. 5. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the said entry. Such entry can at best be a hearsay evidence and as such inadmissible. In (1) Durgabala v. Nityananda, 59 CWN 367, this Court had held that an entry made under Section 143 of the Calcutta Municipal Act in the Assessment Register was inadmissible. 5. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the said entry. But, the main contention of the petitioner is to the effect that by reason of mention of the pond in the Assessment Register his building plan may not be sanctioned. 6. Sanction of building plan depends on various factors to be taken into consideration by -the Municipal Authorities. One of such factor is about the suitability of the site. Whether a site is suitable or not is a question which is a subject-matter of the consideration by the Municipal Authorities according to law governing the subject. The Municipal Corporation may require the soil test report or other such report before sanctioning of such plan. The question of sanctioning the plan would be determined on its merits and not on the basis of the entry made in the Assessment Register. Even if the pond is not mentioned in the Assessment Register still the Municipal Corporation had right to determine the suitability of the site and insists upon the soil test report or other reports as the case may be. 7. Therefore, in case a building plan is sought to be sanctioned by the petitioner in that event, the same may be decided on its merits, in accordance with law, without being affected by the mentioning of the pond in the Assessment Register, unless it is otherwise prohibited by any other law for the time being in force, in the light of the observation made hereinbefore. 8. With this observation the petition is dispose of without any order as to costs. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied, the same may be given to the applicant expeditiously.