RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR,J. - (1.) The grievance of the petitioners is directed against the refusal and inaction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to mutate the name of the petitioner company as owner of premises no.15A, Armenian Street ("the premises"). The petitioners also pray that the KMC treat the premises as a non-thika premises in their records.
(2.) The facts culminating in the filing of the petition are that the petitioner by an indenture dated 14 June, 2008 purchased the premises. The premises is approximately 5 cottahs 8 chittaks and there is land and building situated on the premises. It is alleged that notwithstanding there being no material in the records of the KMC, the KMC has unlawfully sought for a clearance from The Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, the respondent no.5 herein. It is also alleged that by an order dated 30 December, 2016 passed by the respondent no.5, the petitioners had come to learn that the premises is not within the purview of the Thika Controller. The petitioners complain that though they have filed a copy of the order dated 30 December, 2016 with the KMC, the KMC have failed and refused to mutate the name of the petitioner company in their records and have also refused to treat the premises as a non-thika premises.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the KMC that the petitioner has suppressed an earlier order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009 under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 ("the Act"). It is further alleged that the writ petitioner and the vendor to the aforesaid conveyance were represented throughout in the proceedings before the Thika Controller. Insofar as the order dated 30 December, 2016 is concerned, it is alleged that the same is an unsigned order and is contrary to the earlier order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009. The KMC also challenges the authenticity and veracity of the order dated 30 December, 2016 served on them by the petitioners. It is further contended by the KMC that notwithstanding enquiries, the respondent no.5 was unable to verify the authenticity of the order dated 30 December, 2016 on the ground that the file pertaining to the premises was untraceable. It is also contended that the premises has vested in the State in terms of the order dated 28 January, 2011 passed by the respondent no.5.;