Disposed

Shyamal Dutta v. the Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 Mar 2021WPA/5623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge defective judgment directs the Howrah Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation regarding unauthorized construction within twelve weeks, ensuring a hearing, while explicitly noting the Court did not decide the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The Administrator-cum-Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing t

Shyamal Dutta Vs the Howrah Municipal Corporation and… — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. 24 19.03.2021

¶2

(Item No. 30) (AB)

¶3

W.P.A 5623 of 2021

¶4

Sri Shyamal Dutta

¶5

¶6

The Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. K. Raihan Ahmed …… for the petitioner Mr. Sandipan Banerjee Mr. Ankit Sureka ….. for Howrah Municipal Corpn. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Mr. Rameshwar Sinha … for respondent No. 8

¶8

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on

¶9

record.

¶10

The petitioner complains of illegal and unauthorized construction by the private respondents at the premises No. 257, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Ward No. 38, Police Station – Shibpur, District – Howrah – 711 102 by raising construction without leaving the mandatory side open spaces.

¶11

The petitioner objected to the aforesaid unauthorized construction by writing a letter through his learned advocate on 5^th February, 2021. The petitioner complains that the same has not been considered by the respondent authority till date.

¶12

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 8 submits, upon instructions, that the construction is being made in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Howrah Municipal Corporation.

¶13

¶14

As it appears that the representation of the petitioner objecting to the illegal and unauthorized construction is pending consideration at the end of the respondent authorities, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the Administrator–cum-Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation being the respondent No. 2 herein to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, including the petitioner, at the earliest, but positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

¶16

The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to all the necessary parties, including the petitioner, immediately thereafter.

¶17

In the event the aforesaid respondents are of the considered opinion that the construction has been made either in violation of the plan sanctioned or devoid the sanction plan, then necessary steps shall be taken to deal with such unauthorised construction, in accordance with law.

¶18

The aforesaid respondent shall restrict the consideration of the representation with regard to

¶19

¶20

unauthorized construction only and not enter into or decide any private dispute of the parties regarding right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid land.

¶21

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners and all points are left open to be decided by the aforesaid respondent at the time of consideration of the representation of the petitioner.

¶22

The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the representation dated 05.02.2021 to the aforesaid respondent at the time of communicating the order of the Court.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon completion of usual legal formalities.

¶25

(Amrita Sinha, J.)

Shyamal Dutta v. the Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Dutta v. the Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapan Kumar Seal and Ors. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

M/S. Sumanta Susanta Overseas Private Limited and Anr. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Md. Hafiz Mullick Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rustom Ali and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sahid Hoda @Sahid Hoda Ansari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Syed Ahsan Ali Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.