Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side

Order Date: 29.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Review applicants – Anandlok Welfare Association and another; Respondents – Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), City Enclave Private Limited (respondent No. 6), and others.
  • Background: The dispute stems from KMC’s mutation of 700 sq m open land in favour of City Enclave Pvt. Ltd. The Association filed WPO 992/2015, WPO 990/2016 and WPO 492/2017 challenging the mutation, the demolition order of the Municipal Building Tribunal (MBT) dated 24.05.2011, and the dismissal of a review dated 06.04.2017.
  • Subsequent proceedings: A common judgment on 24.02.2002 dismissed the three writ petitions. Appeals (APO 28/2022 and APO 29/2022) were filed, and a Division Bench heard them together with MAT 617/2023. On 14.03.2024 the Division Bench dismissed APO 28/2022 and APO 29/2022 but did not expressly dispose of MAT 617/2023.
  • Review applications: RVWO 17/2024 (linked to APO 29/2022) and RVWO 18/2024 (linked to APO 28/2022) were filed alleging that several General Applications (GA 2‑5 of 2022, GA 2 of 2023) and other issues were overlooked, including non‑consideration of the fire licence, Schedule XVI of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, and the status of the court‑appointed receiver.
  • Specific contentions raised in the review:

1. The Association had filed two civil suits for specific performance of an oral agreement and for ingress/egress rights, and Prity Properties Pvt. Ltd. had filed a suit challenging the deed of conveyance (TS No. 196/2022) with an appeal pending (Misc. Appeal No. 37/2022).

2. Alleged fraudulent sanction plan not decided by the court.

3. Various GA applications (GA 2‑5 of 2022, GA 2 of 2023) were not heard or disposed of.

4. The appointed receiver had not been formally discharged.

5. Written objection by Sanjay Singh (TS No. 15/2003) and fire‑licence concerns were ignored.

6. Issues relating to Schedule XVI of the Kolkata Municipal Act were left undecided.

  • The court examined the record, noting that the Association failed to produce original deeds or a plan showing the 700 sq m as a car‑parking space for the flat owners, despite notices under Order 11 Rule 15 CPC.
  • The Division Bench had previously directed production of the sanctioned plan and original conveyance documents (orders dated 17.11.2022, 01.05.2023, and subsequent notices). The Association either produced only certified copies or claimed the originals were unavailable, leading to repeated non‑compliance.
  • Under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, the respondent (City Enclave Pvt. Ltd.) applied for dismissal of the appeals for failure to comply with the document‑production orders. The court recorded several hearings (May‑June‑August 2023) confirming non‑compliance.
  • The court held that the non‑production of the required documents justified dismissal of the appeals and, by implication, of the connected review applications.

Final Outcome

  • The review applications RVWO 17/2024 and RVWO 18/2024 are dismissed.
  • All connected applications, including the pending MAT 617/2023, are disposed of.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Parties may obtain certified copies of the judgment upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Land Mutation; Court Review