FACTS :-

Mr M filed a complaint regarding the unauthorised construction on his property, and he is the sole owner of the said property that has been illegally encroached. In view of this illegal construction, hence he approached the Hon’ble Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, wherein it was pleaded in front of the Hon’ble Court for the demolition/removal of the illegal construction at the said property by the respondent municipal authority. Moreover also pleaded to provide a mandatory injunction direction to the respondent municipal authorities to take appropriate steps for the demolition/removal of the said unauthorised structures. 

The Hon’ble Judge, as per the writ petition, ordered for an inspection of the property by the concerned officer from the side of the respondent to conduct an inspection on the said property and to provide a report as an affidavit regarding the same.

On the day of the inspection, Mr. M being a senior citizen had authorised Kshetry and Associates to visit his property on the day of the inspection. Wherein Kshetry and Associates were jumped and hearld with abusive and foul language by the local people under the leadership of one respondent Mr. S at the inspection site. Hence, the inspection of the said property was highly unsuccessful. 

Further, when the said matter came up for hearing in front of the Hon’ble Judge, the respondent authority filed the inspection report as an affidavit from which it was evident that the statement made by the said affidavit was corroborated wherein they also mentioned that they were unable to locate the said property and that there was no unauthorised construction at the site. Moreover, this report was subitted to mislead the Hon’ble Court. This shows an act of unprofessionalism on the part of the respondent’s authority.  

The report also wrongly mentioned in the report by the opposition that there exists a tank, and the same clarifies the situation that part of the plot which indicates the ‘tank’ in the mutation certificate was actually shallow land, which was used as a dumping ground for garbage. Therefore, on this ground, it was submitted that the mutation certificate should be amended and the instant writ petition should be allowed. Therefore, it states that the said premises were wrongly recorded in the mutation certificate. Therefore, Mr M also submitted the Inspection Book ( Land & Buildings) of Kolkata Municipal Corporation that does not mention anything about the existence of the Land & Tank. Hence, the filing of the report by the respondent authority was baseless, and the Mutation Certificate that was issued to the petitioner was wherein the nature of the said premises was wrongly recorded. 

Solution :-

Kshetry and Associates have played a major role in this case wherein Kshetry and Associates were present at the site wherein they had to face unlawful biasness from the locals and the respondent authorities. This did not stop Kshetry and associates from not getting adequate justice for our client, which he truly deserves. Moreover, it was also brought out the malicious act by the respondent authorities how they were operating in an arbitrary nature and not letting Mr M enjoy the rights of his own land. And as per the wrong mutation certificate provided to Mr. M by the respondent authority depicts the violation of the fundamental rights of our client under Artice 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

The Verdict :-

The Hon’ble Court ordered the respondent authority for the rectification of the Mutation certificate wherein the physical existence of Land and Tank should not be present. Further, the respondent authority should be present before the Hon’ble Court with the files for its perusal. The respondent authority should submit that the land in question was recorded as ‘land & tank’ in the municipal records for a very long time, for which he seeks to file the affidavits. Lastly, the affidavit-in-opposition should be filed within two weeks of the order.