JUDGMENT :

Two writ petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing as they involve the same immovable property. In WP No. 10159 (W) of 2009, which is referred to as the first writ petition for the sake of convenience, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated March 16, 2004 issued under Section 17 A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 as amended in 1993 and the decision dated February 2, 2009 of the second respondent. In WP No. 9635 (W) of 2016, which is referred to as the second writ petition for the sake of convenience, the petitioner has called upon the first respondent to provide water supply to the immovable property concerned.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the impugned decision dated February 2, 2009 is without jurisdiction. By such decision, the authorities found a particular immovable property to be a water body governed under the provisions of the Act of 1984 as amended in 1993. He has submitted that, the impugned order was passed by the Kolkata Municipal Commissioner. According to him, Kolkata Municipal Commissioner is not the competent authority under Section 17 A of the Act of 1993. He has referred to the notificat