SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The following issues in the case are :

(i) Whether the Assistant Officer-cum-collector (S) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) is empowered to reject an application for assessment of the un-assessed property of the petitioner in a cryptic manner thus holding that the KMC is the owner of the said property without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ?

(ii)Whether the petitioner’s registered deed of conveyance, as well as record of rights could be ignored by the Kolkata Municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘K.M.C’)) at the time of rejecting the application for assessment ?

2. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is as follows :

By a registered deed of conveyance dated 4th September, 2012 the petitioner has purchased a property measuring about 6 cottahs 0 chittacks and 200 square feet out of 33 cottahs 5 chittacks and 15 square feet more or less situated at Mouza Topsia, J.L. No.6 C.S. Khatina No.491 and C.S. Dag No. 427/607, within KMC Ward No.66 (hereinafter referred as ‘said property’).

The petitioner has purchased the said land from the proforma respondent nos 8 to 42. It is stated that prior to 1980 the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act coming into force, the records as available with the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer the names of the predecessors of the respondent nos 8 to 42 were recorded as ‘Dakhalkar’.

It is also stated that the proforma respondents herein were all owners of their respective undivided proportionate shares in that property in question. It is further stated that the proforma respondents herein did not take any step for mutation of their names in the record of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in respect of their respective share in the properties. As a result thereof the said property was all along treated by the KMC as an unassessed plot of land.

The petitioner after purchasing the said property on 14th February, 2014 has applied for mutation of his name in the record of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (K.M.C) thereby depositing requisite mutation fees.

All on a sudden the petitioner was communicated/informed vide letter dated 10th June, 2014 issued by the Assistant Assessor/Collector (TTD) , the respondent no.5 herein that the petitioner’s application for assessment of un-assessed property cannot be allowed since it is found that the said property is the KMC’s property.

Immediately thereafter petitioner made repeated representations vide letter dated 14th June, 2014, 1st July, 2014 as well as 1st September, 2014 to the respondent no.5 to revisit the issue as the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser/owner of the said property. But unfortunately the respondent authorities failed to pay heed to those representations. Accordingly, without finding any alternative assailing the impugned order the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Initially, this court directed the parties to exchange affidavits. Accordingly parties filed their respective affidavits.

Submissions of the Learned Advocates

3. Mr. Subrata Kr. Basu learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner strongly argued that without assigning any reason the respondent no.5 in a cryptic manner rejected the petitioner’s application for assessment of the said property, thereby holding that the K.M.C is the owner of the said property. He further contended that by virtue of the registered deed of conveyance executed on 4th September, 2012 petitioner became the owner of the said property.

4. Mr. Basu further vehemently argued that as per Section 183 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, the respondent authority was under obligation to mutate the said property in name of the petitioner as the petitioner is the owner of the said property.

5. Mr. Basu further vehemently contended that the title of a property cannot be adjudicated by the municipal authority upon an application for mutation. The person having the title is entitled to mutate his name in the corporation records.

6. Mr. Basu further co