##PAGE1##

3-4

18.05.2026

sayandeep

Ct.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 14165 of 2024

Amra Sabai

Versus

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Kuldeep Mallick

Mr. A. K. Upadhyay

Mr. R. K. Panday

Mr. A. Shikdar

Ms. Sushmita Ghosh

Ms. Salini Dey

… For the petitioner.

Mr. Srijan Nayak

Mr. Rituparna Maitra

…For Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

Mr. Chayan Gupta

Mr. Jishnujit Roy

Ms. Deveshi Bosu

Ms. Arpita Dey

… For the private respondent.

1. The writ petitioner by the present writ petition

seeks to not only challenge the mutation effected

by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in favour of

the respondent No. 5 but also the sanctioned

building plan dated 9th April, 2018 issued in

favour of the respondent No. 5. In response to a

query from the Court, Mr. Malllick, learned

advocate representing the petitioner would

candidly submit that in the writ petition, the

petitioner has not disclosed its title deed. The

petitioner would, however, submit that the

2

WPA 14165 of 2024

challenge in the present petition is based on an

order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms

and Tenancy Tribunal dated 3rd September, 2010

in OA 264 of 2010. According to him, the tribunal

had set aside and/or quashed the letter dated 27th

January, 2010 issued by the Assistant Secretary,

Government of West Bengal as also set aside the

order of the concerned revenue officer concerning

the plots of land forming the subject matter in the

proceedings No. 32 of 1992 and 1 of 2006

registered under Section 14T(3) and 14T(3A)

respectively, of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,

1955. The respondents were accordingly directed

to take steps and handover possession of the land

to the applicant therein immediately, preferably

within a period of 3 months.

2. Records reveal that challenging the aforesaid

order, a writ petition was filed by the State before

the Division Bench of this Court which was

registered as WBLRT No. 164 of 2010. By an

interim order dated 11th January, 2011, the

Division Bench of this Court on being prima facie

satisfied with the case made out by the State had

admitted the writ petition with further direction

that no further steps shall be taken by both the

parties in respect of the order already passed by

the Tribunal. The stay was obviously confined to

the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner

3

WPA 14165 of 2024

though has not made any averment in the present

petition as regards its title deed, however, in a

separate writ petition which was taken up for

consideration by this Court on 12th May, 2026

and registered as WPA 10087 of 2026, which was

for a direction upon municipal authority to

forthwith cause an inspection of the property of

the respondent No. 5 and to quash the certificate

of completion already issued in respect of the

towers Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7, the petitioner had

disclosed its title deed. A perusal of the title deed

would demonstrate that the petitioner had

acquired 1% interest in the share of the owner

who has been described in the title deed as Mr.

Arindam Roy The title deed appears to have been

executed on 19th April, 2024. The said title deed

does not out trace the title of Mr. Arindam Roy,

the petitioner’s vendor. It is, therefore, not clear

how the petitioner acquired interest in the plots.

There is also another aspect of the matter. The

petitioner strangely claims to have acquired only

1% interest. In this context, it would be profitable

to reproduce the schedule “A” and “B” of the title

deed.

4

WPA 14165 of 2024

3. It would thus, transpire from the aforesaid

document that the memo of consideration is only

Rs. 2,00,000/- though the query disclosed thereto

would demonstrate that the market value of the

property indicated therein was around to Rs.

4,50,001/-. Although, the learned advocate for the

petitioner by placing the order passed by the

Division Bench has attempted to make out a case

that the entire steps taken by the State is bad in

law, however, on a perusal of the documents

annexed to the writ petition and, from the

statements made in the writ pe