RASHIDA HAMID (AHMED) Vs. JUBAIDA HAMID & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the writ Court while deciding an issue as raised by the writ petitioner Zubaida Hamid in W. P. 11374 (W) of 2015 has gone beyond the scope of the reliefs which she has prayed for. The answer to this question will decide the fate of the present appeal which has been preferred by Zubaida Hamid's sister, Rashida Hamid (Ahmed).

(2.) Before we go into the facts of the instant case, it appears from the records that while moving the writ petition, being W. P. 11374 (W) of 2015, Zubaida Hamid had not made her sister Rashida Hamid (Ahmed) as a party to the writ proceedings. After the impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2018, was passed by the learned Single Judge, Rashida Hamid (Ahmed) filed an application before this Court, being CAN 2719 of 2018, seeking leave to appeal against the said impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2018. By an order dated 14th May, 2018, this Court had allowed Rashida Hamid (Ahmed)'s application by granting her leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2018. On that very date, i.e., 14th May, 2018, this Court had directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to file a report in the from of an affidavit stating therein specifically as to whether the allegations made by Rashida Hamid (Ahmed) in her application for stay have any basis or not. In the said report, the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation was also directed to disclose all relevant records for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matter. Consequently, on 20th June, 2018, the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was filed and taken on record.

(3.) Now, let us turn to the facts of the present case. In the writ petition filed by Zubaida Hamid, she claimed to be the owner/landlord of premises no. B/168A/H/1, Tiljala Road, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata 700 046. According to her, such ownership came by way of a Gift Deed dated 10th April, 1975. The specific nature of complaint as sought to be made by the writ petitioner appears to be that the private respondent nos. 5 to 13 had sunk an unauthorized power driven tubewell at her premises without taking permission from the concerned authority. The principal prayers made in the writ petition are setout hereinbelow: -