Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 78 (CAL)

RAJASHI DEY v. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

2018-01-10

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as recorded in the cause title. 2. Mr. Moitra, learned counsel, appearing with Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, learned counsel, for the petitioner, points out that the issue in this writ petition relates to two premises namely, no.7/1A, Hazra Road and no.3/1A, Nafar Kundu Road (respectively referred to as premises no. I and II). 3. It is next submitted that in respect of both premises no.I and II, the petitioner, as the owner, entered into an agreement with the respondents/Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short “KMC”). Such agreement was entered into in the year 1994 in respect of premises no.I and II. Since the respondents/KMC failed to act in terms of the agreement of 1994, the petitioner, as the subsequent purchaser/owner, was left with no option but to sell the premises no.I to a third party, namely, M/s. Darby Sales Pvt. Ltd. and another. 4. Mr. Moitra points out that after a series of litigation connected to premises no.I by and between M/s. Darby Sales (supra) and the respondents/KMC, the premises no.I was entirely vacated by the respondents/KMC. In the meantime, the petitioner proceeded to develop premises no.II and sold all portions of premises no.II to third parties, retaining a single flat for himself. 5. Now Mr. Moitra argues that the respondents/KMC have suddenly by a notice dated 5th September, 2017, sought to revive their rights under the agreement dated 17th August, 1994 with the intention to occupy portions of premises no.II. Mr. Moitra points out that the agreement dated 17th August, 1994 is no longer enforceable after a lapse of more than 20 years and the respondents/KMC are attempting to use such agreement as a lever to negotiate their rights into the premises no.II on the threat, as apprehended, that the water connection and the sewerage lines to premises no.II shall stand to be otherwise disconnected. 6. Appearing on behalf of the respondents/KMC, Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned senior counsel, with Mr. Aloke Ghose, learned counsel, argues that the cause of action in the writ petition does not bear any proximate cause to the alleged threat apprehended by the writ petitioner from the respondents/KMC. 6. Appearing on behalf of the respondents/KMC, Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned senior counsel, with Mr. Aloke Ghose, learned counsel, argues that the cause of action in the writ petition does not bear any proximate cause to the alleged threat apprehended by the writ petitioner from the respondents/KMC. It is further argued that the rights and obligations of the parties under the agreement dated 17th August, 1994 are the subject matter of several pending lis before other courts/fora and, the terms of the agreement dated 17th August, 1994 cannot be distorted by way of this writ petition for the purpose of claiming disruption of essential municipal supplies regarding which there is no concrete material made available to this Court. 7. It is also argued that the petitioner is required to obtain water and sewerage supplies from the respondents/KMC in accordance with law by applying for the necessary completion certificate in respect of premises no.II, being in issue in this writ petition, since it is admitted by the parties that the premises no.I now is owned by a third party purchaser. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view, upon a conjoint understanding of the facts, that any action to influence the water and sewerage supplies to premises no.II can be only taken in accordance with law. This Court is also in no manner of doubt whatsoever that both the petitioner and the respondents/KMC shall be entitled to act strictly in terms of the statute, meaning thereby the KMC Act, in discharge of their obligations qua premises no.II. 9. This Court is of the further view that enforcement of the terms of the agreement dated 17th August, 1994 can be taken recourse to by any of the parties only in accordance with the civil law of the land with its attendant/ancillary rights and obligations. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is not detained further. Since affidavits are not called for, allegations made in the petition are not admitted. 11. W.P. No.600 of 2017 stands thus disposed of.