A disputed question of title cannot be decided by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation under Sections 183 and 184 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1899.

Satyabrata Sinha, J :

1. This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 27th May, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 847 of1996 wherein the said learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition filed by writ petitioner-respondent No.1 quashing an order dated 8.2.96 passed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation mutating the name of the appellant.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. .

3. The properties in question admittedly belonged to Trust Estate of Nagendra Nath Sett as owners of 45 Chittaranjan Avenue which allegedly let out vacant land to Md. Rasul whereafter allegedly one Bejoy Timber & Co. constructed certain structures. The appellant claims himself to have purchased the said structures by reason of deed of conveyance dated 8th November, 1951, as a result whereof they are said to have become sub-lessees of Md. Rasul. A suit for ejectment was instituted against Md. Rasul by the Trust in 1955 which was allegedly decreed. It is stated that upon sanction granted by the Corporation in favour of the appellant, it constructed privy etc. in the said land.

4. Apparently on 11th October, 1966 the appellants were also granted fresh lease on expiry of 1956 lease comprising of the land together with the structure thereon. The private respondents by a deed of conveyance dated 18th July, 1981 acquired right, title and interest of the aforementioned trust and got their names mutated in the Corporation. The appellant filed an application for mutation as a thika tenant. However, to that, an objection was raised by the private respondents. By an order dated 8th February, 1996 the State of West Bengal was mutated as the owners and the appellants have been shown as the thika tenants owning the structure by striking down the name of the private respondents. The said order dated 27.5.1996 was subject matter of the writ application.

5. The learned trial Judge by reason of the judgement under appeal allowed the writ application, inter alia, on the ground that there existed a disputed question of title, thus the said order could not be sustained. The learned trial Judge, however, directed the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the respondents before passing a final order.

6. Mr. S. Pal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned Counsel submits that an order of mutation does not affect the title and in that view of the matter no civil consequences have ensued to the appellants and, thus the writ application was not maintainable. In support of his aforementioned contention he placed a decision of mine in Depta Tewari and Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 1037, Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Ors. reported in 1996(7) JT SC 580 and Amulya Ratan Ghorai vs. Secretary of Sri Sri Ram Krishna Paramahansa Sebak Sangha & Anr. reported in 1989(1) CL.J 447. Our attention was further drawn to the effect that in terms of s. 193(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, the thika tenant has been made liable to pay taxes. It was submitted that as the writ petitioners themselves submit that the Corporation cannot decide the question of title, the question of giving any further opportunity of hearing does not arise. In any event contends the learned Counsel, the principles of natural justice does not contemplate grant of personal hearing in each and every cases. In support of his aforementioned contention the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance upon Carborundum Universal Ltd. vs. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi reported in JT 1989(4) SC 56 and Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Jesus Sales Corporation reported in JT 1996(3) SC 597.

7. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent on the other hand submits that it is not correct to contend that the appellants were sub-lessees. According to the learned