GANESH CHAND ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the writ petitioners who approached this Court more than two decades ago complaining change of names in the mutation register of respondent Municipal Corporation without any notice or hearing to the appellant/writ petitioners who are the erstwhile owners of the property. The entire dispute points out two issues for consideration i.e. whether the party respondents who are noted as occupiers of the land or property in question are the tenants under the appellants or by virtue of West Bengal Thika Tenancy Laws they became Thika Tenants as by operation of law, the State of West Bengal becomes the owner of the property. The other question is whether respondent Municipal Corporation could have changed mutation without intimating the said proposal to the owners whose names stand in the records of the Corporation. So far as the property involved whether it is Thika Tenancy property or not, cannot be gone into in this proceeding as the challenge is not with regard to the said issue but the challenge is incorporating the name of State of West Bengal as owner of the property represented by Thika Controller in the place of appellants. It is pertinent to mention that Kolkata Municipal Corporation cannot decide right, title and interest over the property by adjudicating the controversial issue arising between the parties. It is altogether a different forum which has to adjudicate such rights of the parties. The duty of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is to effect mutation, changes in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the Act and the Rules and also by following principles of natural justice. Whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has complied with the above conditions or not is the only issue that arises for our consideration.

(2.) According to State of West Bengal Thika Controller will decide whether it is a Thika Tenancy property or not and not the Municipal Corporation. According to the appellants a Civil Court has to decide this issue and not the Thika Controller. Be as it may, the stand of the respondent Corporation, is they have no records pointing out at whose instance such mutation was effected in the year 1994. It is also relevant to mention that none of the party respondents who were initially inducted as tenant under the erstwhile owner, a charitable trust, are not claiming any Thika Tenancy rights and they do not want to declare themselves as such.

(3.) In the light of the above situation, even if the property by virtue of operation of Thika Tenancy Laws vests in the State of West Bengal but before mutating the record of rights, the Municipal Corporation ought to have informed the erstwhile owner in whose name the property stood and then change the mutation record.