Kamal Naha and Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 May 2026WPA/702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kamal Naha; Kolkata Municipal Corporation; mutation; strike off name of recorded owner; premises 18A Sarat Ghosh street Kolkata; Charubala Naha; registered probated will dated 13.06.1986; probate District Delegate Alipore Act. 39 case No. 17/1987; mutation case O/054/30-OCT-14/87105 recorded 30.10.2014; Civil Court decree title appeal No. 47 of 2008 dated 23.11.2012; second appeal SA 38 of 2015 stay dated 21.04.2026 for 16 days; unexplained delay in writ petition; non-disclosure of probate and decree; liberty to approach after success in second appeal; Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.; WPA 702 of 2025; disposed 06.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Prayed-for direction to strike off the private respondent's name was not granted; petitioners permitted to approach the Court again upon success in the second appeal ¶¶15

Kamal Naha and Anr. Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayed-for direction to strike off the private respondent's name was not granted; petitioners permitted to approach the Court again upon success in the second appeal

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the municipality (Kolkata Municipal Corporation) ought to be directed to strike off the name of the private respondent recorded as owner of premises No. 18A Sarat Ghosh street, Kolkata. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

No irregularity was found on the part of the municipal authorities in carrying out the mutation, especially as the decree in the title appeal was passed on 23 November 2012.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no explanation for the petitioners' delay in approaching it, and observed that the petitioners also did not disclose the probate granted by the learned District Delegate, Alipore in Act. 39 case No. 17 of 1987 or the decree in title appeal No. 47 of 2008.

¶¶4

Key takeaways

Since the decree under challenge, it was deemed prudent to permit the petitioners to approach the Court afresh once they succeed in the pending second appeal (SA 38 of 2015).ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kamal Naha & anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ors., WPA 702 of 2025 (decided 06.05.2026) (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) — Petitioners, claiming title to premises No. 18A Sarat Ghosh street, Kolkata through Charubala Naha under a registered probated will dated 13.06.1986 (probated by the learned District Delegate, Alipore in Act. 39 case No. 17/1987), sought a direction to the KMC to strike off the name of a private respondent recorded as owner on 30.10.2014 (mutation case No. O/054/30-OCT-14/87105) on the strength of a Civil Court decree in title appeal No. 47 of 2008 dated 23.11.2012, which has since been stayed in second appeal SA 38 of 2015 for 16 days by order dated 21.04.2026. Held: no explanation for the petitioners' delay in approaching the Court, and the probate and the title appeal decree were not disclosed; no irregularity by the municipal authorities in carrying out the mutation, especially as the decree passed on 23.11.2012; petitioners permitted to approach the Court once they succeed in the second appeal. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

06.05.2026 Sayandeep Sl. No. ML 50 Ct. No. 03

¶2

WPA 702 of 2025

¶3

Kamal Naha & anr. Vs.

¶4

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ors.

¶5

Dr. Arka Pratim Chaudhury Mr. Samrat Saha Ms. D. Das Ms. A. Roy

¶6

…… for the petitioners

¶7

Ms. Piyali Sengupta Ms. Baisali Basu

¶8

…. For the KMC

¶9

The petitioner has filed the writ petition, inter alia, praying for direction upon the municipality to strike off the name of the private respondent as recorded owner in respect of the premises No. 18A Sarat Ghosh street, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The petitioner claims that the Charubala Naha was the owner of the aforesaid premises, the petitioners acquired interest therein on the strength of a registered probated will dated 13^th June, 1986.

¶10

According to Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the petitioner subsequent to the demise of Charubala Naha, the petitioner had obtained probate of the said will from the Court of the learned District Delegate, Alipore in Act, 39 case No. 17/1987 and consequent thereon, the petitioners’ name was mutated in the records of the municipal Corporation. Subsequently, on the strength of a decree passed by the Civil Court in title appeal No. 47 of 2008 dated 23^rd November, 2012 which has since been stayed, the private respondent had got his name recorded as owner in respect of the said premises.

¶11

WPA 702 of 2025

¶12

Ms. Sengupta, learned advocate appears for the municipality. She submits that the name of the private respondent was recorded on 30^th October, 2014 vide mutation case No. O/054/30-OCT-14/87105.

¶13

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court does not find any explanation for the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioners have also not chosen to disclose the probate granted by the Court of learned District Delegate Alipore in Act, 39 case No. 17 of 1987. Incidentally, the decree passed in title appeal No. 47 of 2008 dated 23^rd November, 2012 has also not been disclosed. It transpires that in second appeal being SA 38 of 2015 on 21^st April, 2026, the judgment and decree passed in title appeal No. 47 of 2026 had been stayed for 16 days. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid interim order is yet to be extended.

¶14

Considering peculiar facts, I do not find any irregularity on the part of the municipal authorities in carrying out the mutation especially when the decree in the title appealwas passed on 23^rd November, 2012. However, noting that the aforesaid decree is under challenge, in my view, it shall only be prudent to permit the petitioners to approach this Court once the petitioners succeed in the second appeal.

¶15

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

¶17

Kamal Naha and Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Naha and Anr. 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

Dr Kamal Kumar Chakrabarti Vs the Kolkata Municipal Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Tarak Chandra Paul and Anr. Vs the Chairman Bansberia Municipality and Anr.

Sachchindananda Chakraborty and Ors. Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rama Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ramkrishna Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rabi Nandan Sahoo Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.