JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellants have assailed the judgement and order dated April 21, 2021 passed in WPO 579 of 2018, a writ petition filed by them.

2. By the impugned judgement and order dated April 21, 2021, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants seeking mutation of a property as the owner thereof after imposing costs of Rs. 25 lakhs to be paid by the appellants to the West Bengal State Legal Service Authority, Kolkata. Learned Single Judge has also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellants.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that, the appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition complaining of inaction on the part of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) in not mutating the name of the appellant No. 1 as the owner of premises No. 15A, Armenian Street, Kolkata-700001. He has referred to Section 183 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and contended that, such provision makes it obligatory for the Municipal Commissioner to mutate the name of the purchaser. He has referred to the list of dates on the basis of which he has contended that, appellant No. 1 became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the KMC authorities as well as the Thika Controller had filed affidavits in the writ petition. In their affidavits such authorities had disclosed Misc. Case No. 26 of 2009 wherein, the Thika Controller held that the subject property was a Khatal and therefore vested with the State.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the order of the Thika Controller dated January 28, 2011. He has contended that, the Thika Controller was approached for the purpose of declaring Thika Tenancy. In such proceedings it was nobody’s case that, the subject land was a khatal. He has contended that, after the Thika Controller held that the land was not a thika land he ceased to have jurisdiction in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2009 and could not have embarked upon an enquiry as to whether the subject land was Khatal or not.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the order dated January 28, 2011 of the Thika Controller is null and void. He has contended that, learned Single Judge did not deal with the contention that the order of the Thika Controller was without jurisdiction. According to him, the authenticity of the certified copy of the order dated January 28, 2011 is doubtful since by a letter dated January 10, 2018 Thika Controller had confirmed that the original records of the subject premises were not presently available at his office. Since the original case records of the subject premises was not available at the office of the Thika Controller , a copy of the order dated January 28, 2011 could not have been made over by the Special Revenue Officer on December 10, 2018. The original order dated January 28, 2011 was not produced but a copy thereof which had been certified to be a true copy by a Special Revenue Officer was produced. He has contended that, the original order dated January 2, 2011 of the Thika Controller should be directed to be produced in Court.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the writ petition was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 25 lakhs on the ground that the appellants suppressed the order dated January 28, 2011. He has contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, question of suppression of the certificate of such order does not arise.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the order of the Thika Controller was without jurisdiction. He has pointed out that written notes of arguments were submitted