KAMAL NAHA AND ANR. ADITYA KUMAR SONAR vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. — WPA/702/2025

Case under Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act ,1980 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0011152025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

17th January 2025

Filing Number

WPA/515/2025

Filing Date

08-01-2025

Registration No

WPA/702/2025

Registration Date

09-01-2025

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act ,1980 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

KAMAL NAHA AND ANR. ADITYA KUMAR SONAR

Respondent(s)

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

17-01-2025

NEW MOTION

03-05-2026

MOTION

04-05-2026

MOTION

04-05-2026

FOR DISMISSAL

18-02-2026

NEW MOTION

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

Summary of WPA 702/2025 (Kamal Naha & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) The court dismissed the petition seeking to strike off the private respondent's name as owner of property at 18A Sarat Ghosh Street, Kolkata. The petitioners claimed ownership through probate of a 1986 will, but the respondent's name was recorded following a 2012 civil court decree (currently stayed in second appeal). The court found no irregularity in the municipality's 2014 mutation and directed petitioners to approach the court again only if they succeed in their pending second appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WPA 702/2025 (Kamal Naha & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) The court dismissed the petition seeking to strike off the private respondent's name as owner of property at 18A Sarat Ghosh Street, Kolkata. The petitioners claimed ownership through probate of a 1986 will, but the respondent's name was recorded following a 2012 civil court decree (currently stayed in second appeal). The court found no irregularity in the municipality's 2014 mutation and directed petitioners to approach the court again only if they succeed in their pending second appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case