SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2579

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
GAURANG KANTH, J
SK. SYEED AHMED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS – Respondent
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/1168/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. T. Mika, Mr. Pratick Sardar, Miss Priyanka Das
For the Respondents: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Ms. Priyavada Singh, Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Ms. Sima Chakraborty

Municipal authorities retain discretion over water supply connections; disputes between co-owners do not violate fundamental rights.

Headnote:(A) Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 254, 265(b), 266, and 267 - Dispute over water supply - The petitioner sought an independent water connection for a divided property, which is claimed to be joint; the Corporation denied the request based on its policy restricting one connection per property - The Court ruled that matters of water supply fall under municipal authority’s discretion and found no violation of rights. (Paras 9, 12, 18)

(B) Jurisdiction - The petitioner’s dispute over water connection is a private matter with a co-owner already subject to civil suits pending; the argument for a separate supply was rejected. (Paras 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the owner of the southern part of a building while another party owns the northern part. They have joint rights over shared utilities but there have been disputes, leading to the current petition for an independent water connection from the KMC.

Findings of Court:
The Corporation's refusal to grant a separate connection was upheld as it fell within its policy. Access to the existing connection continued for the petitioner, and the present dispute was personal rather than legal.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a separate water connection despite existing municipal policy restrictions and ongoing civil disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the municipal authority has exclusive control over the provision of water supplies and that the petitioner had a longstanding connection without demonstrated illegality or preferential treatment.

Result: Writ petition is dismissed.

…for KMC The Court: The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent/Corporation to permit the construction of a separate underground water reservoir and to grant an independent water supply connection through a separate ferrule, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner of the southern portion of premises bearing No. 25A, Samsul Huda Road, P.O. Circus Avenue, P.S. Karya, Kolkata – 700017. The respondent no.10, on the other hand, is the absolute owner of the northern portion of the said four-storeyed building. Both parties have acquired their respective titles by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 14.03.1988 and 17.01.2007, respectively.

It is further submitted that both the petitioner and respondent no.10 jointly hold easementary and user rights over the eastern common passage, staircase (extending from the ground floor to the rooftop), septic tank, and underground water reservoir. The respective portions of the premises have been duly mutated in their respective names, and separate assessee numbers have been assigned to each of them.

Disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent no.10 regarding the use and access of common areas, particularly the underground reservoir. As a result, civil suits are currently pending before the competent Civil Court. It is alleged that respondent no.10 has been obstructing the petitioner’s access to water from the common underground reservoir. Consequently, the petitioner approached the respondent Corporation seeking permission to construct a separate underground reservoir and to obtain an independent water connection. However, no response was forthcoming, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, has filed a report asserting that the entire premises at 25A, Samsul Huda Road is considered a single unit by the Corporation. According to the Corporation, both the petitioner and respondent no.10 are co-owners of an indivisible property, with shared access to common facilities. The Corporation contends that the premises is not capable of vertical division.

It is further submitted that the premises is already equipped with a water supply connection through a ferrule of the maximum permissible size, determined in accordance with the annual valuation of the land and building under the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act . It is argued that, as per the applicable provisions and prevailing municipal policy, only one domestic water connection is permissible per premises, irrespective of the number of owners. Hence, no separate connection can be granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the Corporation's position, arguing that the existence of two separate assessee numbers entitles the petitioner to a separate water connection. He relies upon Section 267 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act to support his claim, contending that the Corporation has the discretion to permit separate connections based on annual valuation and the petitioner’s compliance with tax obligations.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation places reliance on Sections 254 , 265(b), and 266 of the Act. He submits that Section 254 contemplates a single water supply per premises, Section 265 (b) confirms that the property has already been duly assessed for water supply and is currently receiving water through the maximum-sized ferrule, and Section 266 prohibits occupation of any premises without a certified water connection, which, in this case, already exists.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the materials placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased his portion of the premises in 1988 and has been receiving water supply since then. Upon subsequent subdivision of ownership in 2007, resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top