Sl. No.24 13.01.2025 Suman Ct. 15 WPA 11431 of 2022 Kashi Nath Das Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick Ms. Sudeshna Das ..for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath ..for KMC The petitioner challenges a reasoned order dated March 8, 2022, passed by the Assessor-Collector, Borough-XVI, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, whereby his claim for the mutation of the assessment record for premises No. 152 Ishan Ghosh Road, under Ward No. 123 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, was not entertained. The petitioner asserts that the property was purchased in the name of his wife, since divorced, although he paid the entire consideration amount. He has also obtained a decree from the Civil Court declaring his right, title, and interest over the said property. Based on this Civil Court decree, the petitioner seeks to have the relevant property mutated in the assessment record. From the reasoned order, it appears that the petitioner’s divorced wife subsequently sold the property in question to Ashalata Mondal, Smt. Chandana Mukherjee (Mondal), and Biswajit Mallick. Based on the title deeds, the Corporation mutated the relevant records in the names of these transferees. In the impugned order dated March 8, 2022, the Assessor-Collector, after considering the petitioner’s case, suspended the assessment in favour of Ashalata, Chandana, and Biswajit until a final order is passed by the "appropriate forum." I find no reason to interfere with the order dated March 8, 2022. The petitioner bases his claim on the decree obtained from the Civil Court. However, it appears that the property had already been transferred to Ashalata, Chandana, and Biswajit before the decree was issued. These individuals were not parties to the civil suit, and as such, they cannot be considered covered by the decree of the Civil Court. In this regard, the Corporation was correct in not removing the names of Ashalata, Chandana, and Biswajit from the assessment records. The Corporation appropriately suspended the mutation of their names in the assessment record. For these reasons, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the order dated March 8, 2022. This decision shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing 2 appropriate proceedings before the competent forum to assert his right, title, and interest in the property, in accordance with the law. Accordingly, WPA 11431 of 2022 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 3