MR. Mohta vs State of Bengal

FACTS :-

Mr. Mohta filed a complaint regading the unauthorised construction on his property and he is the sole owner of the said property that has been illegally enroached. In view of this illegal construction, hence he approached the Hon’ble court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Consttituion 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 and inspection on the said property and to provide a report as an affidavit regarding the same.

On the day of the inspection, Mr. Mohta being a senior citizen had authorised Adv. Rajesh Kshtry to visit his property on the day of the inspection. Wherein Mr. Kshetry and his associates were jumped and hearld with abusive and foul language by the local people under the leadership of one respondent Mr. Shaw 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 Hob’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 unfrofessionalism on the part of the respondent 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 a shallow land, which was used as a dumping ground of garbage. Therefore, on this ground it was submitted that the mutation certificated should be ammended and the instant writ petition should be allowed. Therefore, it states that the said premises was wrongly recorded in the mutation certificate. Therefore, Mr. Mohta also submitted the Inspection Book ( Land & Buildings) of Kolkata Municipal Corporation that does not mention anything about the existance of the Land & Tank. Hence, the filing of the report by the respondent authority was baseless and that the Mutation Certificate that was issued to the petitioner was wherein the nature of the said premises was wrongly recdorded. 

Solution :-

Kshetry and Associates have played a major role in this case wherein Advocate Rajesh Kshetry Along with the associates of 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 the adequete 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 arbitraty nature and not letting Mr. Mohta enjoy the rights of his own land. And as per the wrong mutation certificate provided to Mr. Mohta 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 existance of Land and Tank should not be present. Further, the respondent autority should be present before the Hon’ble Court with the files for its persual. That 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 for filing the affidavits for the same. Lastly, the affidavit-in-opposition should be filed within the timeframe of two weeks of the order. 

To Top

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, you acknowledge the following:

If you have any legal issues, you, in all cases, must seek independent legal advice.

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this website you agree to our use of cookies.