Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET WP No.519 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DEBADI CHARAN RAKSHIT & ORS.Petitioners Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :
6. h August, 2012.
Appearance : Mr.Anirban Roy Advocate.
Mr.Anil Dhar, Advocate.
….
For the petitoner Mr.Barin Banerjee, Advocate.
MRS.Sima Chakraborty, Advocate.
… for the KMC.
Mr.Debasish Roy, Advocate.
Mr.Goutam Das, Advocate.
… for respdt.
Nos.4 to 7 The Court :The petitioner has challenged the impugned decisions dated 30th October, 2006 and 29th November, 2006, being Annexures “P-3”.
and “P-4”.
to the writ petition prayer for amalgamation of the premises wherein was not allowed.
their The petitioner claims to be the owner of the Premises Nos.22 and 22/1B, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the said premises’ ).The petitioner made a prayer for amalgamation of authorities.
the Such said prayer premises was turned before down by the the respondentsrespondents- authorities by the impugned orders dated 30th October, 2006 and 29th November, 2006.
At the time of hearing of this writ petition, it was found that there are other co-sharers in respect of the said property.
So, I directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to add the said co-sharers as party-respondents to the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, the said co-sharers have been added to the instant writ petition as added-respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein.
I have petitioner, heard the the learned Counsel as added-respondents Corporation Authorities.
appearing as well the for the Respondent- The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that in spite of the said property being partitioned, the same has not been apportioned in terms of the aforesaid partition amongst the petitioner and the private-respondents.
Under such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondents-authorities ought to take appropriate property.
steps Learned in the Counsel matter appearing for for apportioning the the said added-respondents submits that no steps be taken in the matter without giving an opportunity of hearing to them.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the impugned orders are cryptic and non-speaking in nature and accordingly they are set aside.
I dispose of the instant writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a proper application before the respondents-authorities seeking amalgamation and apportionment of the premises in question.
In the event such representation is made, the respondents-authorities shall given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well to the added-respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein and pass a reasoned order in the matter.
The petitioner shall file such application within a fortnight from date and the respondents-authorities shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months thereof.
The respondents having not used any affidavit in the matter, the allegations made against them shall not be deemed to be admitted.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) rnc.