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 disputes.

Judgment :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking implementation of the judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2015, titled Nemai

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case are as follows.

3. One Laxmi Narayan Ghosh was the owner of a parcel of land measuring approximately 2 Bighas, 10 Kottahs, and 3 Chhitacks, comprised in Holding No. 195, Picnic Garden, Tiljala. The said Laxmi Narayan Ghosh died intestate on 23.07.1950, leaving behind his wife Smt. Nilu Bala Ghosh and his son Jitendra Nath Ghosh as his only legal heirs. Upon the death of Smt. Nilu Bala Ghosh, who also died intestate on 07.12.1970, Jitendra Nath Ghosh became the absolute owner of the said property.

4. On 15.12.1973, Jitendra Nath Ghosh executed a registered deed of lease in favour of Badri Narayan Kumar (father of Respondent No. 4-7) and Nemai Chandra Kumar (father of Respondent No. 3), who claimed and represented themselves to be the proprietors of M/s. Kumar Industries, thereby leasing out the said property for a term of 20 years, commencing from 01.12.1973 and expiring on 30.11.1993, at the rent and on the terms and conditions specified therein. Under the said lease, the lessees were permitted to construct structures upon the demised land and to use and enjoy the same during the subsistence of the lease. It was expressly stipulated that upon expiry of the lease on 30.11.1993, the lessees would deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the lessor in its original condition, after removing all structures erected thereon. It is an admitted position that certain structures were constructed by the lessees during the lease period.

5. On 18.01.1982, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into force. Soon thereafter, Jitendra Nath Ghosh filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the vires of the said Act. The said writ petition, being C.R. No. 10449 (W) of 1983, was entertained, and by interim order dated 30.09.1983, the operation of the Act of 1981 and the Rules framed thereunder was stayed in respect of the subject property. Various interim orders were passed from time to time, and the writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Thika Tribunal for appropriate adjudication.

6. In the meantime, the lease granted in favour of M/s. Kumar Industries expired by efflux of time on 30.11.1993, and thereafter, the lessees ceased to have any right, title, or interest in the said property.

7. Upon the enactment of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, M/s. Kumar Industries, through its partners, filed an application before the Thika Controller on or about 10.04.2003, being Return No. 67/234, seeking a declaration that they were Thika tenants in respect of the subject property. They further claimed to have deposited rent with interest with the Controller for the period from 18.01.1982 to 2007. The Controller, by order dated 27.01.2010, allowed the said application and declared M/s. Kumar Industries as Thika tenants in respect of the said premises.

8. In the meantime, upon the demise of Jitendra Nath Ghosh, his legal heirs executed a deed of conveyance dated 10.09.2007, transferring the said property to seven companies, including M/s Mani Square Ltd. (the Petitioner herein). The transferees duly intimated the Assessor, Tollygunge T