Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.
Tilak Ratan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.O. NO.579 of 2018
Decided on : 21-04-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 340 - West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 - Section 5(3) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 (e) - Land - Petition are that petitioner by an indenture purchased the premises - It is also alleged that by an order passed by the respondent no.5, petitioners had come to learn that premises is not within the purview of Thika Controller -Petitioners complain that though they have filed a copy of order with KMC, the KMC have failed and refused to mutate name of petitioner company in their records and have also refused to treat premises as a non-thika premises - It is contended on behalf of KMC that the petitioner has suppressed an earlier order passed in Misc. Case under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 - It is further contended by KMC that notwithstanding enquiries, respondent was unable to verify the authenticity of the order on the ground that the file pertaining to premises was untraceable - It is also contended that premises has vested in State in terms of the order passed by the respondent -Respondent has also filed an affidavit and reiterated fact that there has been suppression on the part of petitioners inasmuch as order passed in Misc. Case had been deliberately suppressed in petition- Whether petitioner company was a party to proceeding in which purported order appears to have been passed.
Finding of the Court:
Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties - One who comes to court must come with clean hands. Unfortunately, there is a section of society whether property grabbers, tax evaders, bank dodgers or other unscrupulous litigants from all walks of life who have little respect for the law - Such persons find the process of law as a convenient tool to pursue their ill designs - They have little or practically no interest in the truth - They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals -As Bowen L.J. had observed court have found in court experience that there is one panacea which heals every sore litigation, and that is costs” (Cooper vs. Smith (1884) 26 Ch.D 700 at 711, in a dissenting judgment) - In view of deliberate act of suppression and non-disclosure of the order and the fraud practiced on this Court costs are imposed to be paid by petitioners to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata within a month from date of passing this order to be utilized for juvenile justice victims only - In default of payment within a month, aforesaid amount would carry interest at 6% per annum till the date of payment.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. The grievance of the petitioners is directed against the refusal and inaction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to mutate the name of the petitioner company as owner of premises no.15A, Armenian Street (“the premises”). The petitioners also pray that the KMC treat the premises as a non-thika premises in their records.
2. The facts culminating in the filing of the petition are that the petitioner by an indenture dated 14 June, 2008 purchased the premises. The premises is approximately 5 cottahs 8 chittaks and there is land and building situated on the premises. It is alleged that notwithstanding there being no material in the records of the KMC, the KMC has unlawfully sought for a clearance from The Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, the respondent no.5 herein. It is also alleged that by an order dated 30 December, 2016 passed by the respondent no.5, the petitioners had come to learn that the premises is not within the purview of the Thika Controller. The petitioners complain that though they have filed a copy of the order dated 30 December, 2016 with the KMC, the KMC have failed and refused to mutate the name of the petitioner company in their records and have also refused to treat the premises as a non-thika premises.
3. It is contended on behalf of the KMC that the petitioner has suppressed an earlier order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009 under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (“the Act”). It is further alleged that the writ petitioner and the vendor to the aforesaid conveyance were represented throughout in the proceedings before the Thika Controller. Insofar as the order dated 30 December, 2016 is concerned, it is alleged that the same is an unsigned order and is contrary to the earlier order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009. The KMC also challenges the authenticity and veracity of the order dated 30 December, 2016 served on them by the petitioners. It is further contended by the KMC that notwithstanding enquiries, the respondent no.5 was unable to verify the authenticity of the order dated 30 December, 2016 on the ground that the file pertaining to the premises was untraceable. It is also contended that the premises has vested in the State in terms of the order dated 28 January, 2011 passed by the respondent no.5.
4. The respondent no.5 has also filed an affidavit and reiterated the fact that there has been suppression on the part of the petitioners inasmuch as the order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009 had been deliberately suppressed in the petition.
5. In reply, it is submitted by the petitioners that the order dated 28 January, 2011 has been passed without jurisdiction and no reliance ought to be placed on the same. It is further alleged that the registered conveyance in favour of the petitioner company has not been set aside by any Competent Court. Accordingly, the KMC is bound to give effect to the conveyance and mutate the name of the petitioner company in their records. It is further alleged that the order passed by the respondent no.5 dated 28 January, 2011 is in excess of jurisdiction and the Thika Controller has no power or jurisdiction to decide whether there is a “khatal” on the premises or not. It is also submitted that the premises does not vest in the State and the KMC be directed to mutate the premises in the name of the petitioner company and treat the premises to be a non-thika premises.
6. I have heard the parties. I have also considered the Notes of Submissions filed on their behalf.
7. At the outset, I deal with the point of suppression which has been raised both by the KMC and the respondent no.5. It is alleged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners are guilty of suppression and have deliberately and intentionally chosen not to disclose the order dated 28 January, 2011 passed by the Thika Controller in Misc. Case No.26/2009.
8. Premises no.15A, Armeni
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
