Disposed¶12

Sibnath Chattopadhyay v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Mar 2025WPA/25453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 25453 of 2023; Sibnath Chattopadhyay vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation; Kausik Chanda, J.; order dated 03.03.2025; mutation of assessment record; municipal assessment mutation without prior notice to owner; no hearing before mutation; post-facto hearing to son-in-law; registered sale deed; premises 59A K.K. Majumdar Road Kolkata 700075; direction to respondent no.3 to hear petitioner and respondent no.4; reconsideration within one month; reasoned decision; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.3 to hear the petitioner and respondent no.4 and reconsider the mutation issue within one month from the date of the order by passing a reasoned decision, with liberty to the parties to rely upon all relevant documents in their possession. ¶12

Sibnath Chattopadhyay Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the mutation of the assessment record of the petitioner's premises in favour of respondent no.4 was effected without affording the petitioner prior notice or a hearing, rendering the Corporation's action improper. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

On the Corporation's own stance, the petitioner was not afforded a hearing before the mutation of the assessment record; only his son-in-law was given a post-facto hearing approximately one year later.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The course of action adopted by the Corporation was improper; the petitioner should have been notified prior to the mutation of the relevant assessment record in favour of respondent no.4.

¶11

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.3 to hear the petitioner and respondent no.4 and to reconsider the issue within one month from the date of the order by passing a reasoned decision; the parties are at liberty to rely upon all relevant documents in their possession.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mutation of assessment record without pre-decisional hearing held improper — The assessment record of premises 59A, K.K. Majumdar Road, Kolkata-700 075, owned by the petitioner, was mutated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in favour of respondent no.4 in 2022 on the basis of a registered sale deed without prior notice to the petitioner; the Corporation's 2023 explanation to the petitioner's son-in-law amounted only to a post-facto hearing. Holding the Corporation's course of action improper, the court disposed of WPA 25453 of 2023 (Kausik Chanda, J.) by directing respondent no.3 to hear the petitioner and respondent no.4 and pass a reasoned decision within one month, the parties being at liberty to rely upon all relevant documents in their possession.

¶1

03.03.2025 Item M.L./42 AN/Ct. No. 15

¶2

WPA 25453 of 2023

¶3

Sibnath Chattopadhyay vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation ors.

¶4

Mr. Sanjay Bose Mr. Priyankar Basu Mallick Mr. Sayandeep Chandra … for the petitioners

¶5

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Ms. Susmita Chatterjee … for the K.M.C.

¶6

The petitioner’s grievance is that a portion of the premises at 59A, K.K. Majumdar Road, Kolkata-700 075, which is owned by him, has been mutated in favour of respondent no.4 without prior notice to him. The assessment record was mutated in favour of respondent no.4 in 2022 based on a registered sale deed.

¶7

The Corporation submits that it received an objection from the petitioner’s learned advocate regarding the mutation. In 2023, the petitioner's son-in-law was contacted, and the Municipal Corporation explained to him that the mutation was carried out in accordance with the existing practices and norms of the Corporation.

¶8

Based on the Corporation's stance, it is evident that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing before the mutation of the assessment record. Only his son-in-law,

¶9

¶10

approximately one year later, was provided with a postfacto hearing.

¶11

In light of the above, I am of the opinion that the course of action adopted by the Corporation was improper. The petitioner should have been notified prior to the mutation of the relevant assessment record in favour of respondent no.4.

¶12

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent no.3 to hear the petitioner and respondent no.4, and to reconsider the issue within one month from the date of this order, by passing a reasoned decision. It is understood that the parties shall be at liberty to rely upon all relevant documents in their possession.

¶13

Accordingly, WPA 25453 of 2023 is disposed of.

¶14

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶15

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Sibnath Chattopadhyay v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibnath Chattopadhyay v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sm. Hingul Bala Roy and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal

Leila Roy Vs Soumen Chatterjee

Jagannath Kundu Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Swapan Kumar Gole Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Pdp International Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Krishna Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.