Disposed

Bimal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Apr 2022WPA/14057/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued process directions to the Howrah Municipal Corporation upon a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction without sanction and encroachment on common passage. The order mandates specific procedural steps for inspection and hearing while expressly excluding determination of title or boundary disputes from the Corporation's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to the Howrah Municipal Corporation to conduct an inspection with notice, report findings, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within four months regarding the alleged una

Bimal Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

06.04.2022 Court No. 19 Item no.09 CP

¶2

W.P.A. No. 14057 of 2021

¶3

Sri Bimal Kumar Das Versus

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Ms. Pompey Bose Mr. Sourav Koley …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya Mr. Sounak Mandal …for the respondent no. 8. Mr. Manas Kundu Mr. Debabrata Mondal ….for the State. Mr. Sandipan Banerjee Mr. Ankit Surekha Mr. Sobhan Majumder ….for the H.M.C.

¶6

The petitioner alleges that the respondent no. 8 has raised an unauthorized G + 2 storeyed building at premises No. 101/3, Laxminarayan Tola Road within the jurisdiction of the Howrah Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the corporation’). The allegation is that the entire structure is without a sanction and the structure has also encroached into a common passage. A complaint has been lodged through the learned advocate of the

¶7

¶8

petitioner before the Commissioner of the corporation on April 15 , 2021.

¶9

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8, submits that the question as to whether the passage over which such construction has been made was a common passage or the exclusive property of the respondent no. 8, cannot be decided by the corporation. The claim over the common passage is to be decided by an appropriate civil court. He further points out that a civil suit is pending with regard to the said passage.

¶10

Be that as it may, as the allegation is of raising a construction without any sanction, the corporation must immediately take steps in accordance with law and reach the said complaint of the petitioner to its logical conclusion. While doing so, the corporation shall follow the following procedure:

¶11

a) An inspection of the premises shall be conducted. Such inspection shall be held in the presence of the parties, with 48 hours advance notice to the petitioner and the respondent no. 8.

¶12

b) In case, it is found on preliminary inspection that there may be reasons to believe that the construction was without permission and was continuing, the

¶13

¶14

authorities may take such interim measures by stopping such construction.

¶15

c) The report of the inspection shall be prepared along with the sketch map indicating the extent of deviation, if any.

¶16

d) Such report shall be handed over to the petitioner as also the respondent No. 8.

¶17

e) A hearing shall be given to the petitioner and the respondent No. 8. The parties must also be allowed to furnish their written objection/version to the said report and adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions, before the competent authority.

¶18

f) A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the parties. On the basis of what transpires at the hearing and during inspection, the proceedings shall be reached to its logical conclusion in terms of the statute.

¶19

The court has not gone into the merits of the claims and counter-claims of the parties and the issues shall be decided independently.

¶20

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶21

¶22

The question of title and boundary dispute etc. shall not be decided by the corporation. The only question to be decided by the corporation would be whether the construction has been made without any permission and/or in violation of the building rules.

¶23

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Parties are to act on the server copy of this

¶25

order.

¶26

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Bimal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sita Apparel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Porporation and Ors.

Asit Mukherjee Vs the Panihati Municipality and Ors.

Wakedujjaman Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aratrika Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Biswajit Pramanik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pinki Khanam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.