02.09.2026 sl.17 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 23511 of 2025 Dipak Mondal & Anr. Vs Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality & Ors. Mr. Phatick Chandra Das (VC) Ms. Soma Chowdhury Bandhu Mr. A Chatterjee Mr. S Ghosh Mr. Ranajit Dutta …for the petitioners Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury …for respondent nos. 1-3 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the concerned municipality to mutate the names of the petitioners in respect of the property admeasuring 2 cottahs 12 chittacks 15 sq. ft., situated under Ward No. 29 of the Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality, Holding No. 73/64, J.L. No. 21, Mouza-Uttar Chandannagar, R.S. Khatian No. 519, L.R. Khatian No. 1300, R.S. Dag No. 2065 and L.R. Dag No. 3948. 2. At the outset, Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that the Board is not functioning and that an Administrator has been appointed to manage the affairs of the municipality. He seeks leave to add the Executive Officer of the municipality to the array of respondents. 3. Leave is granted to the petitioners to add the Executive Officer as a party respondent in the matter, and 2 the necessary amendment shall be carried out in the cause title of the petition. 4. Mr. Das submits that, initially, the property in question belonged to a private trust, namely, Sri Sri Thakur Jitendra Nath Math Trust Estate (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”). Upon completion of the requisite formalities, the Trust transferred the property in favour of the petitioners by executing a deed of conveyance dated 12.03.2012. Prior to effecting such transfer, the erstwhile owner, namely, the Trust, had approached the learned District Judge, Hooghly, by filing an application seeking permission to transfer the property, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 211 of 2006. 5. The said Misc. Case was disposed of by an order dated 15.12.2011. Subsequently, it came to light that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the said order. The Trust, accordingly, filed an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the order dated 15.12.2011. The said review application was subsequently disposed of by an order dated 21.06.2025, inter alia, holding that there was no restriction upon the purchasers from enjoying the property purchased by them from the Trust in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Das submits that immediately thereafter, the petitioners approached the concerned municipality and submitted an application praying for mutation of their names in respect of the property in the assessment register 3 of the municipality. However, despite receipt of such application, no effective steps have been taken by the municipality. Such inaction prompted the petitioners to prefer the present writ petition. 7. Referring to an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 21686 of 2023, Mr. Das submits that, in a similar matter, a Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition by directing the municipality to mutate the premises in question in favour of the petitioners therein. 8. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the Municipality, submits that if the matter is relegated to the concerned municipality to consider the petitioners’ application for mutation, he would have no objection. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the stand of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Executive Officer to consider the petitioners’ application for mutation in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other interested parties, if any. If the Executive Officer finds that the petitioners’ prayer for mutation deserves to be accepted, necessary follow-up action shall be taken upon completion of all formalities. If the Executive Officer comes to the conclusion that the petitioners’ application for mutation has no merit, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioners. 4 10. Entire exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. 11. It is clarified that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ claim for mutation of the land. All points are left open to be decided at the time of considering the petitioners’ application for mutation. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)