Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.
(2.) The instant application for recall is in respect of an order dated 11th February, 2014, passed by an earlier Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble, the then Chief Justice. The recalling application appears to have been filed on 5th October, 2016, i.e., after almost two years eight months from the date of dismissal of the appeal along with all connected applications. The order dated 11th February, 2014, in its entirety, is reproduced herein below. "None appears. Learned Single Judge turned down the prayer of the appellant seeking consideration of his representations in the matter of deletion of his name from the mutation records relating to the property in question. It appears that the said property was sold by the father of the appellant in 1971 to the private respondents. Thereafter, the name of the appellant was deleted in 1981. He filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 187 of 1981 against the private respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. Prayer for interim relief was dismissed as not pressed. After a more than two decades, the petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction upon the Municipal authorities to give him an opportunity of hearing with regard to the deletion of his name from the mutation records. Learned Single Judge was of the view that in light of the aforesaid facts such relief could not be granted belatedly. We find that the appellant had approached the Civil Court earlier. He did not get an order of injunction and subsequently sought to reopen the issue relating to mutation before this Court. It is trite law that entries in municipal records do not prove title to immovable property. The appellant is at liberty to establish his title to the property in the civil suit if the same is still pending. Needless to mention that in the event, any declaration of title is made by the Civil Court with regard to the property in favour of the appellant, the latter would be at liberty to take necessary steps to correct the mutation records in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and all connected applications are dismissed."
(3.) Even a bare perusal of the order reveals that adequate reasons have been provided by the earlier Division Bench of this Court for not entertaining in the appeal preferred by the applicant herein against an order passed by a learned Single Judge who refused to pass such orders as prayed for in the writ petition.;