JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alia, sought for demolition of alleged illegal and unauthorized construction made at holding no.50 Padmapukur Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata – 700020 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and has also sought for an enquiry to investigate into the complaints respectively dated 8th October, 2021, 9th October, 2021 and 6th November, 2021 and further claims a compensation of Rs.10 crores on account of damages alleged to have been suffered for acts of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, KMC) connoted to be illegal by the petitioner as also done in colourable exercise of power. The petitioner has also sought for an order for not giving effect to a notice issued by KMC under the provisions of Section 411(1) of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short, KMC Act, 1980) on 23rd September, 2021 which is annexed to the exception filed by the petitioner against a report of KMC. The petitioner also prayed for consequential reliefs in respect of the main prayers.

2. The petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition alleges that the petitioner’s father, namely, Prafulla Kumar Dan by virtue of a lease deed dated 20th January, 1954 said to have come into possession of the said premises. The petitioner’s father, according to the petitioner, was in peaceful possession during his lifetime, thereafter the petitioner is in possession and claims to be in absolute occupation of the said premises in terms of the said lease deed. This stand of the petitioner, however, has been altered in the subsequent averments filed by the petitioner. The petitioner later on says that his father was an agreement holder and by virtue of being so entered into the possession of the said premises. The petitioner thereafter has been in occupation of the same. In view of this inconsistent stand, the right claimed by the petitioner in respect of the said premises is shaken at the very initial stage. The right of lessee cannot be equated with the right of an agreement holder. It is, however, well-settled principle of law that unless there is a specific declaration as to the right, title and interest as also possessory right in respect of an immovable property by a competent civil Court, the right as claimed by the petitioner as an agreement holder cannot be accepted to be a crystallized right. The petitioner, prima facie, has not been able to demonstrate his possessory right as a legal heir of the original lessee or as a legal heir of the agreement holder. In absence of such right having been prima facie demonstrated, the claim of the petitioner in either capacity cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction which proceeds on the basis of a right being available to the petitioner and has been infringed as per the first limb of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the litigation pending in respect of the right, title and interest of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said premises before different other forum, I refrain myself to delve further into the right of the petitioner in respect of the said premises.

3. The genesis of the issuance of the notice under section 411(1) of KMC Act, 1980 according to the petitioner’s allegation appears to be an inspection by the engineer of KMC to the said premises at the instance of the respondent no.6. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition alleges that the respondent no.6 is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of part of the said premises without divulging any particulars as to the tenancy.

4. The petitioner, however, appears from the application, being CAN 1 of 2022 and the exception filed to the report of KMC is aware that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent no.6 on 23rd April, 2008 which the petitioner, however, alleges to be a forged and fabricated document. Civil suit is also pending in connection with the said deed. The writ Court cannot go into the validity of the document in favour of respond