Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 629 (CAL)

MANAS DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-08-17

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2007
( 1 ) THE six petitioners in this writ petition dated September 25th, 2006 are questioning the decision of the Mayor, Chandernagore Municipal corporation dated August 10, 2006 rejecting their applications for mutation of the assessment records. ( 2 ) AFTER purchasing their respective plots of land from the original owners thereof they applied before the competent authority under the West bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for mutation of the record of rights. Though in the existing record of rights the property was recorded as 'pukur' (a tank), while mutating them by incorporating the petitioners' names as owners of the plots the revenue authorities recorded that the property was 'danga' (solid land ). On the basis of such record of rights they submitted the applications requesting the corporation to mutate the assessment records. The corporation turned down the applications on the ground that the plots in question had stood vested in the government in view of the Section 10 notification published by the competent authority under provisions of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. ( 3 ) QUESTIONING that notification dated August 25, 1994 the petitioners moved this Court by filing a writ petition that was allowed by order dated may 8, 2006. The notification was quashed, and it was said that the corporation would be free to deal with the petitioners' mutation applications in accordance with law. The applications submitted by the first and second petitioners were allowed. But the decisions were later on rescinded by the corporation, and by the impugned final decision the corporation held that since the petitioners had failed to produce any document showing permission to convert the property from tank to Viti or Danga, they were not entitled to seek mutation claiming that the nature of the plots owned by them was 'danga'. The corporation proceeded on the basis that the property was nothing but a 'pukur'. ( 4 ) I find that for no valid reason the authority simply was not inclined to accept the reality. Though he proceeded on the basis that the property was nothing but a 'pukur', in reality it was nothing but a solid land. True it is that at one point of time a 'pukur' existed and the record of rights also showed the property as such. Though he proceeded on the basis that the property was nothing but a 'pukur', in reality it was nothing but a solid land. True it is that at one point of time a 'pukur' existed and the record of rights also showed the property as such. But the admitted position is that while mutating the record of rights by incorporating the names of the petitioners, the authorities of the land reforms department recorded that the nature of the property was 'danga'. No authority ever initiated any proceedings against anyone for wrongful conversion of the nature and character of the property from 'pukur' to 'danga'. Hence the question whether conversion was effected through any wrongful means in quite irrelevant. ( 5 ) IT was not for the authority giving the impugned decision to question the validity of the mutation effected by the land reforms authorities. He was wrong in holding that since the petitioners failed to produce any permission granted by the authorities of the land reforms department for conversion of the 'pukur' into 'viti' or 'danga', they were not entitled to seek mutation, though the land reforms authorities revised the record of rights incorporating the change in the nature and character of the property from 'pukur' to 'danga'. In my opinion, the authority did not give a right approach to the matter. He was to proceed on the basis of the record of rights revised, prepared and issued by the authorities under the West Bengal land Reforms Act, 1955, so ong as they were not cancelled by the appropriate authority. In my view, the corporation should have mutated the assessment records by incorporating the petitioner's names as owners of their respective purchased plots. ( 6 ) FOR these reasons, l set aside the impugned decision dated august 10, 2006 and allow the writ petition. I order that the mutation applications submitted by the petitioners shall be considered afresh and appropriate decisions, in the light of observations made hereinbefore, shall be given by the competent authority of the corporation within five weeks from the date of communication of this order to the corporation. If the authority needs any information or clarification, he will be at liberty to get it from the petitioners by asking them in writing to supply it. The decision taken in the applications shalll be communicated to the petitioners immediately. If the authority needs any information or clarification, he will be at liberty to get it from the petitioners by asking them in writing to supply it. The decision taken in the applications shalll be communicated to the petitioners immediately. There shall be no order for costs in the case.