The Thika Controller does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the title to a property of the rival claimants, and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation cannot adjudicate the title of the rival claimants under the provisions of section 183 read with section 193 (4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

( 1 ) ON receipt of an information from the Controller, Calcutta Thika Tenancy to the effect that the premises No. 17, Garcha First Lane, Kolkata - 700 019 is a thika property and the State of West Bengal is the owner thereof, the Calcutta municipal Corporation, by its letter dated 7th February, 2001 being Annexure 'c' to this writ petition appearing at page 28 thereof invited the petitioner being the recorded owner of said premises to be present on 27th March, 2001 at 1 p. m. in the chamber of the Assessor-Collector (South) in connection with the proceeding for proposed change of ownership in the Municipal record.

( 2 ) IMMEDIATELY on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed his objection to such proposed change of ownership in the Municipal record by contending inter alia that since the petitioner who is the absolute owner of the said property is in possession thereof and the said property was never a thika tenanted property, alteration in the Municipal records as proposed is not necessary. A copy of the said objection was also given to the Thika Controller, Calcutta.

( 3 ) SINCE neither the Kolkata Municipal Corporation nor the Thika Controller took any step to redress the grievance of the petitioner against such illegal attempt for recording the proposed change of ownership in the Municipal record, the petitioner moved this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke, cancel, rescind and/or set aside the notice dated 9th January, 2001 issued by the Thika Controller to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and also for restraining the Municipal authorities from acting on the basis of the said notice of the Thika Controller.

( 4 ) PRIOR to issuance of the said notice, a proceeding for determination of the excess vacant land of the petitioner under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 was initiated by the competent authority, Calcutta. The said proceeding was ultimately dropped by the concerned authority by an order dated 13th September, 2000. The certified copy of the order dated 13th September 2000 passed by the competent authority in connection with the said proceeding is also annexed to this writ petition being Annexure 'b' thereto.

( 5 ) IN the said order, the competent authority held that the petitioner is entitled to retain the premises No. 17, Garcha First Lane, Kolkata - 700019. It was further held therein that the petitioner does not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Accordingly, the said proceeding was dropped by the competent authority without preparation of any draft statement.

( 6 ) AFTER being unsuccessful in the said attempt, the State Government through its different machinery made an attempt to take over the land of the petitioner lying at premises No. 17, Garcha First Lane, Kolkata - 700 019 by initiating another proceeding under Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and regulation) Act, 1981. In fact, an ex parte order was passed in connection with the said proceeding by declaring that the said property is a thika tenanted property and the ownership thereof was vested with the State.

( 7 ) THE legality of the said order was challenged by the petitioner in this petition, as the same was passed without notice to the petitioner. In view of such complaint, Justice Aloke Chakrabarti (as His Lordship then was) by an order dated 22nd June, 2001 passed in this writ petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Thika Controller, Calcutta in respect of his grievances within a period of seven days with a further rider to the effect that if such a representation is made, the Thika Controller will decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the said representation. An interim order was also passed by His Lordship restraining the respondents from taking any further steps on the basis of the impugned notice being Annexure - 'c' to