Municipal mutation based on an unrelated sale deed, without statutory notice, is illegal.

The petitioner challenged the action of the Nalbari Municipal Board and its Chairman in deleting his name from the municipal records relating to Holding No. 6, Ward No. 2, and recording Respondent No. 4 as the present owner on the basis of Registered Sale Deed No. 2897/1998 dated 25 February 1999.

The municipal records showed that the petitioner’s father was recorded as the owner of Holding No. 6, whereas Respondent No. 4 was subsequently shown as its present owner.

However, the sale deed relied upon by the Municipal Board concerned a 7-lecha plot and an old Tin Chali under Holding No. 7, not Holding No. 6.

The petitioner also alleged that no notice had been issued to him under Section 83 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, and this allegation was not denied by the authorities.

During the proceedings, the Municipal Board and its Chairman failed to file a response or produce the relevant records despite repeated directions and communications from the Court.

Whether the Nalbari Municipal Board acted illegally in recording Respondent No. 4 as the present owner of Holding No. 6 on the basis of a sale deed relating to Holding No. 7?

Whether the mutation/recording was invalid for failure to issue notice to the petitioner as required under Section 83 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956?

Whether the failure of the Municipal Board and its Chairman to comply with the Court’s directions to file a response or produce records warranted the imposition of exemplary costs?

The Court applied Section 83 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, which requires due notice in proceedings affecting entries relating to municipal holdings and embodies the principles of natural justice.

It further applied the principle that a municipal authority cannot mutate or record a person’s name in respect of a holding on the basis of a document that does not relate to that holding; municipal records must correspond with the relevant title or transfer document.

The Court also relied on its inherent authority to protect the administration and sanctity of judicial proceedings by imposing exemplary costs for deliberate non-compliance with judicial directions and failure to produce records.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The sale deed relied upon by the Municipal Board described a 7-lecha plot with an old Tin Chali under Holding No. 7, whereas the impugned municipal entry concerned Holding No. 6.

Since the deed had no connection with Holding No. 6, the recording of Respondent No. 4’s name against that holding was held to be illegal and misconceived.

The absence of notice to the petitioner, in breach of the requirement under Section 83, independently vitiated the impugned recording.

The Court further found that the Municipal Board and its Chairman repeatedly disregarded directions to participate in the proceedings or produce records, thereby delaying adjudication of a writ petition pending since 2018 and undermining the judicial process.

The Nalbari Municipal Board and its Chairman were directed to take effective steps to record the petitioner’s name, as the son of Late Atma Ram Choudhury, in respect of Holding No. 6.

For non-compliance with the Court’s directions and failure to produce records, exemplary costs of ₹30,000 were imposed upon Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, payable to the Registry by 3 September 2026; failing payment, the amount was directed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and transferred through the Assam State Legal Services Authority to the Sonapur Government Old Age Home.