Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 12014 of 2026 Dipa Agarwal & Anr. Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Maloy Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhrojyoti Ghosh For the Kolkata : Ms. Piyali Sengupta Municipal Corporation Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee For the respondent no.4 : Mr. Amit Chatterjee Heard on : 15.07.2026 Judgment on : 15.07.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Challenging the order of cancellation of mutation in respect of stall no. B-2+3, Old Block, Gariahat Market, under Kolkata Municipal Corporation vide order dated 21st April, 2026, passed by the Chief Manager (Market), Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2 WPA 12014 of 2026 3. The petitioners claim to be the occupants of the aforesaid stall since the year 2010 on the strength of the Power of Attorney and the deed of assignment. According to the petitioners, simultaneously with the execution of the deed of assignment the original stall holder, (shop) namely, Satyananda Banerjee, during his lifetime executed a power of attorney to look after and handle the shop room. The petitioners state that originally Satyananda Banerjee used to run a grocery and stationary shop at Gariahat Market from the aforesaid stall. Subsequent to the execution of the deed of assignment and later the notarized general power of attorney, the petitioners had been continuously running its business from the aforesaid stall at Gariahat Market. Incidentally, the petitioners had made application for mutation in the year 2021. Though, the municipal authorities had allowed the mutation, subsequently, at the instance of the private respondent herein, who happens to be the son of Satyananda Banerjee, the original assignor, the mutation in favor of the petitioners stood cancelled. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to use and occupy the stall on the strength of deed of assignment executed by the Satyananda Banerjee. There is no challenge to such document. Having regard thereto, cancellation of the mutation effected vide order dated 21st April, 2026 cannot be sustained, the same should be set aside. 5. Ms. Sengupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of the municipal authorities. According to her, application for mutation was 3 WPA 12014 of 2026 not made on the strength of the deed of assignment but on the basis of an affidavit. The municipality being not aware with regard to the factum of the death of Satyananda Banerjee had allowed the mutation. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint made by the private respondent since it transpire that the date on which the affidavit was purported to be executed, Satyananda Banerjee was not alive, the municipality had cancelled the mutation. There is no irregularity on their part. 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the private respondent. He would submit that the private respondent was completely unaware with regard to the factum of execution of the deed of assignment unto and in favour of the petitioners. The private respondent had started making enquiry subsequent to the demise of the Satyananda Banerjee and later came to learn that the aforesaid mutation has been effected. According to him, Satyananda Banerjee died on 15th October, 2019 and the affidavit was purportedly executed and notarized later. In the light of the above he submits that there is no irregularity in the order impugned. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon going through the materials on record it would transpire that it is the petitioners’ case that originally Satyananda Banerjee was an allottee and used to run a grocery and stationary shop at Gariahat Market from the aforesaid stall. The petitioners’ case further proceeds on the premise that not only Satyananda Banerjee 4 WPA 12014 of 2026 during his lifetime executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioners authorizing the petitioners to look after and handle the said shop room a deed of assignment was executed in the year 2010. The said deed of assignment is a registered document dated 17th August, 2010 which has been duly registered with the Additional Sub-Registrar, Alipore, South 24- Parganas. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have remained in possession of the shop room since the execution of the deed of assignment and later the power of attorney. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were running the said shop room. It is also not in dispute that the said Satyananda Banerjee during his lifetime did not object to the petitioners carrying on business from the stall. Though the mutation was allowed, subsequently, at the instant of the private respondent who happens to be the son of Satyananda Banerjee, the municipal authorities on the basis of the verification carried out found that the affidavit based on which mutation was granted was forged and accordingly had cancelled the mutation. I find that the petitioners have now come forward and disclosed the deed of assignment which is a registered document. Apparently, there appears to be no challenge to such document, at least, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent, could not place before this Court any document to demonstrate that there is any challenge to such document. 5 WPA 12014 of 2026 8. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the municipal authorities must, at this stage, reconsider their order in the light of the disclosure made by the petitioners. 9. The matter is, thus, remanded back to the municipal authorities by setting aside the order dated 21st April, 2026. It is expected that the municipal authorities shall take a decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Till a decision is taken possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)