JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 21st December, 2017 passed by the Municipal Commissioner rejecting their prayer for Amalgamation of two premises purchased by them from this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. 2. The impugned order came to be passed pursuant to a judgement by another Co-ordinate Bench dated 30th August, 2017 in W.P. No. 1218 of 2014 (Shelter Projects Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) , setting aside an earlier order passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, refusing the petitioners prayer for Amalgamation of the said two premises. 3. The brief facts relevant to the instant case are that premises no.8, Suresh Chandra Banerjee Road, formerly known as Beliaghata Main Road and the land of premises no.1/1, K.G. Bose Sarani, formerly known as Talpukur Road, Kolkata - 700 010, were purchased by the petitioner no.2 in a suit for partition between family members, as confined by the High Court in separate proceedings. 4. Prior to the application for Amendment, the two premises were mutated in favour of the petitioner no.2 under orders passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. An earlier application for amalgamation of the two premises was rejected and the rejection was challenged before this Court. The last order rejecting the views of Kolkata Municipal Corporation was challenged in W.P. No. 1218 of 2014 (supra). In the said decision a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had, inter alia, held that 'the objections of the KMC based on which the order on the rejection was passed were not sustainable in law.' 5. It was held by the Co-ordinate Bench that amalgamation does not change the physical nature and character of the properties. It was also held that it is irrelevant as to whether disputes existed in the properties or that the boundaries of the properties have not been clearly drawn. It was also held that amalgamation does not decide title to the property. The Co- ordinate Bench also held that the existence of common pathways inside the two properties, would not have any bearing on the amalgamation. Other reasons of the KMC were also rejected by reference to the meaning of the word 'Amalgamation' in Blacks Law Dictionary. It was also held that amalgamation does not decide title to the property. The Co- ordinate Bench also held that the existence of common pathways inside the two properties, would not have any bearing on the amalgamation. Other reasons of the KMC were also rejected by reference to the meaning of the word 'Amalgamation' in Blacks Law Dictionary. In substance it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench that Amalgamation of a premises under Sections 178 (2) and 178(3) of the KMC Act would only be relevant for the purpose of taxation and not for any other purpose. 6. A fresh order has been passed by the Municipal Commissioner pursuant to the demand for consideration afresh, passed by the Coordinate Bench, in its order dated 30th August, 2017 (supra). 7. In the impugned order that was passed, by the Municipal Commissioner himself, the only ground urged by the Commissioner, for rejecting the prayer for amalgamation is absence of clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities. 8. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that while it is true that the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 has been repealed by the Central Government, the States within the Union have been granted liberty to continue operation of the said Act, as per their choice. The State of West Bengal has continued the operation of the said 1976 Act within the State. He would go on to submit that since urban land ceiling clearance is only relevant at the time of sanction of plan, the Municipal Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction in asking for such clearance at the time of consideration of amalgamation of the said properties. 9. This Court has heard Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya at length as also Mr. Ashok Kr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the KMC over a period of two days. 10. The power of mutation and amalgamation of premises numbers are conferred on the KMC, in respect of premises, falling within its defined Municipal area. Mutation or amalgamation admittedly does not confer any title to the persons applying for it. The same is relevant for the purpose of taxation and also for convenience of the citizens for the purpose of benefits and liabilities under the KMC Act. 11. Mutation or amalgamation admittedly does not confer any title to the persons applying for it. The same is relevant for the purpose of taxation and also for convenience of the citizens for the purpose of benefits and liabilities under the KMC Act. 11. Amalgamation or Mutation or Sanction of Building Plan for construction, are sought essentially by owners or at their instance by persons authorised in that behalf. It is nobodys case that any third party can come and seek mutation or Amalgamation of two properties not owned by them or ask for Sanction of Building Plan on property not registered in favour of the person applying for such sanction. 12. Each of the aforesaid Acts are performed by the KMC at the request of the parties. Amalgamation and mutation, however, can be effected at times by the KMC on its own for administrative and revenue considerations. 13. While it is true that the purpose of according sanction of a building plan, mutation and amalgamation is different, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the same can primarily be sought only by owners and lawful owners and/or persons authorised on their behalf. 14. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner, on the case of Asian Leathers & Anr. Vs. KMC & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) CHN 476. In the said decision a Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 12 in particular relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner has held that the KMC cannot ask for anything than what is prescribed under the relevant statute at the time of allowing a facility under the KMC Act 1980. The said decision was, however, rendered in the context of a sanction of building plan by the KMC and where drainage and development fees was also sought to be levied as a condition precedent for such sanction. 15. The petitioner next relied upon a case of ( Giridharilal Soni vs. Municipal Commissioner, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) CHN 578 ). It was held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the KMC while allowing sanction plan of a proposed construction on a property cannot insist of a no-objection certificate from the Industrial Development Department. 16. reported in 2000 (2) CHN 578 ). It was held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the KMC while allowing sanction plan of a proposed construction on a property cannot insist of a no-objection certificate from the Industrial Development Department. 16. The next decision relied upon by the petitioner was the case of ( Bijay Raj Jain & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) CHN 324 ) . In the said decision a Single Bench of this Court had held that it was outside the authority of the KMC to insist on clearance of Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976, at the time of grant of sanction plan or as a condition precedent thereof. The said decision was, however, rendered under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and, particularly, Section 548 (2) thereof. 17. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya also relied upon Sections 82 and 83 of the said 1932 Act , and referred to the decision of 1995 (1) CHN 383 (In Re: Bijay Raj Jain) . The Co-ordinate Bench has held thereat that mutation cannot confer title on the property and hence all questions raised and demands made by the KMC while asking for sanction of a building plan or while granting mutation as prayed for by an assessee, were without jurisdiction. 18. Mr. Bhattacharya also relied upon another case of ( Samaresh Bose vs. KMC reported in 1996 (1) CHN 380 ). The facts for decision in the said case related to sanction of a building plan for construction. 19. This Court had begun consideration of this matter with the premise that it is only recorded owner/title holder or a person duly authorised in that behalf by the said recorded owner or title holder who can either seek mutation or sanction of a building plan or amalgamation. Such request cannot be made by persons wholly unconnected with the property. This Court has noted that the order of amalgamation or an order of allowing mutation or sanction plan, cannot decide any title to property. Decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and also that of a Division Bench have dealt with the aforesaid issue and are not called to question while answering the issue raised in the writ application. 20. There is, however, one practical consideration. Decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and also that of a Division Bench have dealt with the aforesaid issue and are not called to question while answering the issue raised in the writ application. 20. There is, however, one practical consideration. It has been seen that unscrupulous persons with doubtful title in respect of property could definitely claim the benefits of the aforesaid three facilities of the Municipal Corporation, i.e. sanction of building plan, mutation and/or amalgamation without having interest in the property or for causing harm, interfering with and/or defeating third party rights or statutory mandates. Let us take an example. If a building is constructed on property which is owned in part by an applicant for such building plan and a part whereof, his title, is doubtful and construction is carried out and completed on the said property and third party rights are created thereon albeit possessory, the same may lead to a chaos in society in general and the areas under the KMC in particular. 21. Amalgamation by itself, cannot entirely prejudice third parties as has already been held by a Co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 30th August 2017 (supra). On a subsequent request the property once amalgamated can again be separated. There are administrative and practical difficulties that are likely to be faced by the KMC as also the third parties who may have interest in the property that may unscrupulously be sought for amalgamation at the instance of certain parties. 22. This Court has already considered the fact that the property in question has been mutated in favour of the petitioner by the KMC. However, at the stage of amalgamation, it may be relevant even for the limited purpose of taxation if the Municipal Corporation may find that certain public rights have been created within the said property in the form of public pathways. Hence the KMC would not be totally unjustified in asking for clearance from statutory exceptions to ownership of property. The exceptions argued at the Bar and already found by the KMC in the impugned order was the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976. The operation of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953 has also been relied upon by the KMC as a bar to ownership of property by the petitioner. The exceptions argued at the Bar and already found by the KMC in the impugned order was the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976. The operation of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953 has also been relied upon by the KMC as a bar to ownership of property by the petitioner. The High Court at the time of ordering sale of a property in favour of a purchaser only decides that the purchaser is the highest bidder as opposed to other participants. The Court does not and cannot certify the title of the sellers or the legal capacity of the purchaser while ordering confirmation of sale or conveyance of property to the purchaser. 23. The two statutes are relevant in the sense that a person holding land and/or owing property in violation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976 or the Estates Acquisition Act 1953, would do so illegally even to a limited extent of seeking Amalgamation. 24. While it is true that ownership is not decided by reason of mutation or amalgamation, it is equally true that mutation and/or amalgamation cannot be claimed by a person who cannot hold lawful title to the extent of the property claimed by him for being violative of statute or otherwise not lawfully owned by him. 25. The next argument of the petitioner that the KMC can always insist on Urban Land Ceiling clearance on a subsequent date while grant of the sanction of building plan does not inspire confidence in this Court. In the decisions relied upon by the petitioner himself before this Court it has been held that Urban Land Ceiling Clearance cannot be insisted at the time of sanction of building plan. Where else can the KMC insist on verification of title to the property even to a prima facie extent than at the time of mutation or before amalgamation. 26. Title to a property cannot be decided by a Municipal Corporation. However, the KMC is entitled to satisfy itself even to a prima facie extent the applicants title to the property even at the time of deciding an application for Amalgamation. 27. 26. Title to a property cannot be decided by a Municipal Corporation. However, the KMC is entitled to satisfy itself even to a prima facie extent the applicants title to the property even at the time of deciding an application for Amalgamation. 27. This Court, therefore, is of the unequivocal view that since it is only lawful title holders to property and/or persons wholly are authorised in their behalf, who can seek amalgamation and mutation, the verification of title by the Municipal Corporation cannot be deemed as illegal or inappropriate or arbitrary or contrary to the authority under the KMC Act. The reliance being placed on sub-Section (4) of Section 178 of the KMC Act by Counsel for the KMC is very apt and appropriate. 'S.178(4) - If the ownership of any land or building or a portion thereof is sub-divided into separate shares or if more than one land or building or portions thereof by amalgamation come under one ownership, the Municipal Commissioner may on an application from the owners or co-owners, separate or amalgamate, as the case may be, such lands or buildings or portions thereof so as to ensure conformity with the provisions of this section.' 28. The KMC by reason of the text of sub-Section (4) of Section 178 can definitely ask the person seeking amalgamation of two properties to demonstrate his title not only inter vivos from his immediate predecessor but also can insist on clearance from statutory authorities that debar him from claiming any right outside the statutory restrictions. 29. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is upheld. The prayer for amalgamation can only be considered by the Municipal Commissioner and/or authorities under the KMC Act, only upon the complete title in law being demonstrated by the writ petitioners. 30. The writ petition must, therefore, fail and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.