Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 254 (CAL)

Jayanta Mallick v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-05-10

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court : The petitioner in this W P under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated May 3, 2013 is seeking the following principal relief:- “b) A writ in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of their men, agents and associates to take immediate steps in order to cancel the mutation in respect of premises No.265 Prantik Pally Kolkata under Kolkata Municipal Corporation Ward No.107 which has been illegally mutated in favour of one Gunjan Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. and the same has been done unlawfully, illegally and not in consonance with the provisions of law.” Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Assessor-Collector (South) of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) has not taken any step on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated March 15, 2013 (WP p.37). He has prayed for an order directing the Assessor-Collector to consider the representation and give a decision or to direct the Collector concerned to demarcate the boundary between the properties of the petitioner and the private respondent. He has said that the authority of KMC mutated the assessment records at the instance of the private respondent who encroached on a part of the petitioner’s property; and that no importance has been given to a suit filed by the petitioner. The encroachment issue cannot be decided by the Assessor-Collector or any other KMC authority or the Collector. The Collector is under no statutory obligation to demarcate the boundary between the properties of the petitioner and the private respondent. The encroachment issue is to be decided, if necessary, by the Civil Court and order for demarcation of boundary is also to be passed by such Court. The document at p.37 dated March 15, 2013 is not a representation, but a lawyer’s notice threatening the Assessor-Collector with litigation on his failure to cancel the mutation of the assessment records effected at the instance of the private respondent. I do not think the notice created any statutory obligation of the Assessor-Collector to take any step. It is evident that with a pure private dispute the petitioner first approached the Assessor-Collector and then this Court. His remedy, if any, was and is before the Civil Court. For these reasons, I dismiss the WP. No costs.