12.09.2025 Item No.07 Ct. No. 446 RP WPA 5626 of 2023 Barid Baran Roy Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Ankit Sureka Mr. Biplob Das Mr. Asis Dutta ….For Petitioner Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neil Basu Mr. Sankha Biswas ….For Respondent No.5 Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Ms. Gulnaz Quraishi Ms. Paroma Sengupta ….For KMC 1. The petitioner, being a septuagenarian citizen of India, is the owner of a piece of land alongwith a building measuring 18 bighas of land at 18, Golf Club Road, Kolkata-700033, which were described in purchase deeds as annexed with this writ petition. According to him, the respondent no.5 through his office bearers has obtained mutation over the entire land by means of fraud, fake documents and false representation without the knowledge and consent of the present petitioner and had also earlier entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with third party to dispose of the land in part and has also taken advance of Rs.6.50 crore for such illegal transfer. 2 2. The petitioner has further come to learn that Royal Calcutta Golf Club taking advantage of illegal mutation in their favour and under the garb of sport activities are running lodging, fooding and banquet halls with liquor services which are not permissible as the private respondent has no authority of using the said property for such purposes. In this regard, the present petitioner made written complaint to various Corporation authorities including the respondent nos.1 to 4, inter alia, indicating the illegality and praying for rectification of records. In this connection a representation dated 2nd February, 2023 was submitted before the Corporation. However, despite receiving such complaint the Municipal Authority remained inaction and in taking advantage of such inaction the private respondent no.5 is continuing with illegal activities in full swing. 3. In course of argument it is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that the petitioner is a septuagenarian person and he has also filed police complaint against the club and its office bearers, which is also pending. 3 Accordingly, it is submitted that the Municipal Commissioner must consider such representation. 4. Learned advocate representing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has submitted that several documents are there in order to show that the private respondent’s name has been mutated and such mutation was done after hearing the parties and being satisfied with various documents. However, it is not denied that the representation has not been replied to. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent has challenged the writ petition firstly on the ground of maintainability because of the inordinate delay in filing the writ application. Secondly, the dispute, if any, is there pertains to right, title and interest over plots of land which cannot be considered by filing a writ petition by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and on going through the contents of the writ petition, prima facie, it can be seen that the dispute pertains to a mutation certificate, which is currently lying in the name of Secretary, Royal Calcutta Golf Club and it pertains to dispute regarding right, title and 4 ownership over the land. Furthermore, a representation addressed to the respondent authorities, dated 2nd February, 2023 was sent to the municipal authority but shockingly the respondent authority did not reply to such representation, which compelled the writ petitioner to come before the Court. It is also undisputed that the writ Court cannot enter into such dispute and the Authority must consider the representation which has not been done. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the Kolkata Municipal Authority that the Chief Manager, Revenue (Tolly Tax) is the appropriate authority instead of the Chief Manager, Revenue, being the respondent no.4 herein. 8. In view of the prayer made by the learned advocate for the petitioner the respondent no.3, being the Municipal Commissioner taking assistance of the Chief Manager, Revenue (Tolly Tax) is directed to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and such exercise is to be made within 30th November, 2025. 9. It goes without saying that since the matter has been heard without calling for affidavits, this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and are 5 left open to be dealt with by the appropriate Authority. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]