02.04.2025 Sl. No.3 akd W. P. A. 3201 of 2025 [Krishna Kumar Sarkar -Vs- The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Rabiuddin Ahmed … … for the petitioner Mr. Subhabrata Das Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das Mr. Kartick Kr. Goyal … for respondent nos.2 & 3 [North Barrackpore Municipality] Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Sandipan Das … … for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking relief against the rejection of his mutation application concerning the property situated at premises being subject plot Mouza – Babanpur, J.L. No.1, Khatian No. 2878, P.S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24-Parganas under the jurisdiction of North Barrackpore Municipality. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had duly made an application for mutation and the same was rejected by the respondent-North Barrackpore Municipality on 16.11.2022. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Municipality submits that the said application had been rejected on the following grounds :- a) Assessees’ (owners) name as per Assessment records and vendors’ name as per deed are not same. b) Krishna Kumar Sarkar s/o. Late Ashok Kumar Sarkar purchased 2 cottah 9 chhitak 34 sq. ft. land instead of 3 cottah 12 chittak with one storied building. So mutation type to be selected as MUTATION CUM SEPARATION/MUTATION OF NEW FLAT. 2 c) Property tax dues were outstanding in respect of holding no.1290 of ward no.9 at the time of verification of documents. Due to the above-mentioned reasons, the mutation application was not disposed and following message was forwarded to the applicant on 16.11.2022: 1. “As per register Bulbul Kundu (Banik), Molay Banik, K.M. Gouri Banik they are the co-owner of property of holding no.1290 of ward no.09, but as per deed their name are not found in submitted deed; 2. Required to upload up date tax bill; 3. Mutation type has to select as mutation cum separation. May be rejected.” 5. Learned Counsel for respondent-Municipality further contends that the respondent authorities are ready and willing to consider the petitioner’s mutation application if the same is resubmitted with proper details and necessary requisite documents. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that his client will resubmit the application within a period of two weeks from date. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that his client will be satisfied if his application is decided in a time bound manner. 7. Accordingly, this Court directs the Assessment-in-charge, North Barrackpore Municipality (respondent no.3) to decide the application of the petitioner if the same is made within the time prescribed hereinabove and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and all the necessary parties. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. 3 9. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Gaurang Kanth, J.)