Disputed questions of title cannot be decided by the writ court and should be resolved by a civil court. The KMC authorities are justified in refusing mutation in the sole name of the petitioner due to the title dispute. The KMC should not be directed to record the property in the sole name of the petitioner without proper demarcation and resolution of the title dispute by a competent civil court.

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner challenges an order dated 15th December, 2012 passed by the AC (TTD), KMC. By the said order, the said officer of KMC directed that the petitioner’s application for mutation in respect of the premises No. 2 Choubhaga Road, Kolkata to be processed for joint mutation in the names of the petitioner and the private respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondents have no right, title or interest in respect of the said premises and the same should be mutated in the sole name of the petitioner.

2. The material facts of the case are briefly that the petitioner claims to be the owner of premises no. 2 Choubhaga Road, Kolkata having purchased the same in a court proceeding. The petitioner relies on extracts from the Assessment Registrar of Tollygunge Municipality in respect of his claim of ownership in respect of the said premises. The petitioner applied for mutation of the property in his name. In view of the inaction on the part of the KMC Authorities, the petitioner moved WP No. 2177 of 2003 in this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 25 November, 2003 by directing the Municipal Commissioner, KMC to consider and dispose of the writ petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. Alleging non-compliance with the said order the petitioner filed a contempt application being CC No. 245 of 2004. In the said contempt application the Municipal Commissioner filed an affidavit disclosing an order dated 22 February, 2005, the operative portion thereof reads as follows:-

“It is rather difficult for the Municipal Authority to identify 2, Choubhaga Road without proper demarcation by Survey passed Commissioner appointed by authority of Law. This authority undertakes to mutate the name after demarcation of the property and production of registered rectification deed.

I once again find it difficult to come to a conclusion in granting mutation in favour of Sri Bimal Kumar Ghosh until and unless demarcation is taken place under the authority of appropriate court or the registered deed of conveyances are rectified by the appropriate registering authority.”

3. The said order dated 22 February, 2005 was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP No. 985 of 2005. An order dated 7 August, 2007 was passed on the said writ application, the operative portion whereof reads as follows:-

“After taking into consideration the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 22 February, 2005, I am of the opinion that the matter can be resolved by appointing a Surveyor from the panel of Surveyors maintained by the High Court who shall, along with a competent official deputed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, conduct a survey in respect of premises no. 2 Choubhaga Road, based on the said report of the Municipal Commissioner. Upon completion of his survey, the Surveyor shall file a report before this Court. The Surveyor shall also demarcate the portion belonging to the writ petitioner clearly, at the time of the filing of the report based upon his survey. This report may be filed before this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petitioner shall also be entitled to participate when the survey is conducted by the Surveyor in terms of this order.

…………………………….

The matter shall appear in the list seven weeks hence under the same heading.”

4. By an order dated 2 December, 2010, the time to conduct the survey and to file a report before this Court was extended by eight weeks from the date of the order after recording the inability of Mr. Bibhas Nandy to act as the Surveyor and by replacing Mr. Nandy by Mr. Pradipta Mukhopadhyay who was the second person named in the earlier order dated 7 August, 2007.

5. Alleging violation of the said order the petitioner filed a contempt application being CC No. 73 of 2011 against the Commissioner, KMC and the Assessor-Colle