IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
M/s. Nilgiri Estates LLP – Appellant
Versus
J.J. Automotive Private Limited and Others – Respondents
M.A.T. No. 2069 of 2022, CAN Nos. 1, 2 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
(A) Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Section 181 - Leasehold rights - The learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Assessor Collector adding Nilgiri as lessee due to lack of authoritative declaration of leasehold rights. The court emphasized that until a competent court adjudicates the status of Nilgiri, its claim as lessee remains in doubt. (Paras 23, 62, 64)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Assessor Collector usurped the jurisdiction of the civil court by deciding leasehold rights, which is impermissible under settled law. (Paras 23, 62)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over the leasehold rights of a property at Palm Avenue, Kolkata, with Nilgiri claiming rights based on a deed of assignment that was not properly executed or registered. (Paras 1-22)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, stating that Nilgiri's claim as lessee was not substantiated and that the Assessor Collector's order was erroneous. (Paras 62-66)
Issues: The main issue was whether Nilgiri could be recognized as a lessee without a competent court's declaration. (Paras 54, 62)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that until a civil court adjudicates Nilgiri's status, it cannot be recognized as a lessee, affirming the principle that administrative bodies cannot decide on civil rights. (Paras 62-66)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against two orders dated November 14, 2022 and December 2, 2022, respectively, passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of WPA No. 18139 of 2022 filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 11 herein. By the orders impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge set aside an order dated May 14, 2022, passed by the Assessor Collector (South), Kolkata Municipal Corporation, adding the name of the appellant as lessee of the property in question.
2. The relevant facts of the case which are somewhat bizarre, in brief are that one Indranath Nandi was the owner of a property situate at 8/2 Palm Avenue, Kolkata-700019, measuring about 97 kathas. He sold the said property by executing a registered deed of conveyance dated June 29, 1944, in favour of one Nabab Moulabi Ali, Haider Khan & Ali Asgar Khan (in short “the Moulabis”) at and for a consideration of Rs. 1,34,000/-. The Moulabis took possession of the said property and got their names mutated as owners thereof in the municipal records.
3. To make payment of the consideration amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- the Moulobis obtained a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from one Kashinath Roy.
4. An agreement dated June 29, 1944, was executed by and between the Moulabis and Kashinath to the effect that the Moulobis would repay the sum of Rs. 75,000/- within 12 years, failing which, they would be bound to execute and register a formal deed of conveyance or alternatively a deed of perpetual lease, in respect of the said property, in favour of Kashinath. The Moulobis paid the sum of Rs. 75,000/- as borrowed from Kashinath to Indranath Nandi, the original owner of the property.
5. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 59,000/- out of the consideration amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- the sale deed dated June 29, 1944, executed in favour of the Moulabis contained a condition for mortgaging the said property in favour of Indranath as security for the balance sum of Rs. 59, 000/-.
6. The Moulabis failed to pay the sum of Rs. 59,000/-. Indranath filed a suit for redemption of mortgage before the learned Chief Judge, Second Court at Alipore being TS No. 284 of 1951. The suit was decreed in favour of Indranath on December 6, 1954. The decree was put into execution by filing Title Execution No. 5 of 1955.
7. The Moulabis also failed to repay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- that they had borrowed from Kashinath. As per the agreement between them, the Moulabis executed a deed of perpetual lease in favour of Kashinath in respect of the concerned property. It was an unregistered lease deed. Indranath Nandi was a confirming party to the deed of perpetual lease dated October 27, 1955.
8. The said property was put up for sale in Title Execution No. 5 of 1955 instituted by Indranath Nandi for execution of the decree that he obtained in TS No. 284 of 1951, the suit filed by him for redemption of mortgage. One Amal Kumar Ghosh, Subrata Ghosh and Debabrata Ghosh (in short ‘Ghosh Brothers’) purchased the said property in auction sale. The sale was confirmed in their favour on December 2, 1968, and sale certificate, as contemplated under Order 21 r. 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was issued in their favour on October 9, 1969. The Ghosh brothers mutated their names as owners of the said property in the records of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short “KMC”).
9. Sometime in the 1970’s, one Ajita Debi Bagchi started claiming ownership rights over the property in question. To repel the same, Kashinath, in his capacity as lessee in respect of the property, instituted a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest, before the learned Second Sub-Judge at Alipore being TS No. 148 of 1977, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of 6th Assistant District Judge, at Alipore and renumbered as TS No. 154 of 1980.
10. An agreement dated March 1, 1979, was entered into by and between the Ghosh brothers as owners of the said property and one Basant Kumar Almal for sale of 90 kathas out of 97 kathas of lan
Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 185
Dev Raj Dogra & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Jain & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 675
The court ruled that administrative authorities cannot determine leasehold rights without a competent court's declaration, emphasizing the necessity of judicial adjudication for civil rights.
The Supreme Court's determination of property status as non-Thika mandates the municipal corporation to recognize the Petitioner as the lawful owner for record purposes, despite ongoing civil dispute....
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
Immovable property transfers require a registered deed; agreements to sell or related documents do not confer title and cannot be used for property mutation.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
Tenancy – Mere entry of a non-occupancy tenant is not sufficient to determine tenancy and court has to look to column of rent to determine whether tenancy existed or not.
Civil Court can review procedural irregularities in tenure matters unless barred by specific statutory provisions, impacting tenant rights and land ownership claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.