Meheboob Hossain Ansari @ Mehbub Hossain Ansari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Meheboob Hossain Ansari @ Mehbub Hossain Ansari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal and application (IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of. The Division Bench declined to accept the Learned Single Judge's view that the writ petitioner lacks bona fides; the Board of Councillors of the concerned Municipality is to decide the issue of unauthorized construction under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 in accordance with law after hearing, within six weeks of communication of the order, by a reasoned order; all issues regarding the unauthorized construction are kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in holding the writ petition not maintainable for misjoinder of cause of action and in doubting the bona fides of the writ petitioner. +2 more

Court's answer

The writ petitioner does not lack bona fides; the view of the Learned Single Judge to the contrary cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

That a relative of the writ petitioner may or may not be guilty of unauthorized construction does not entitle any of the private respondents to make unauthorized construction.

Key takeaways

Construction made under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana does not ipso facto obviate the requirement to comply with the existing building law.ratio¶¶26
The validity, legality and sufficiency of the private respondents' defence (possession of sanction or construction under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) is to be decided by the appropriate authority.ratio¶¶24
The nature of the alleged unauthorized constructions is such that it requires consideration by the Board of Councillors of the Municipality concerned under the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Debangsu Basak and Smita Das De, JJ.) disposed of an appeal against the order dated January 13, 2025 in WPA 17974 of 2024, by which the Learned Single Judge had held the writ petition alleging unauthorized construction not maintainable for misjoinder of cause of action and had doubted the writ petitioner's bona fides. Held: (i) the writ petitioner does not lack bona fides merely because a relative of his, whose unauthorized construction was demolished by respondent no.10, may or may not be guilty of unauthorized construction — that does not entitle any private respondent to make unauthorized construction; (ii) construction under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana does not ipso facto obviate the requirement to comply with existing building law; (iii) the existence of unauthorized construction and the validity, legality and sufficiency of the private respondents' defence (sanction or Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) fall for decision by the Board of Councillors of the concerned Municipality under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, which is to decide in accordance with law after affording hearing, endeavouring to conclude within six weeks from communication of the order, and to pass a reasoned order to be communicated forthwith. All issues regarding the unauthorized construction were kept open.

1 FMA 381 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And

The Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De

FMA 381 of 2025

With

IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025

Meheboob Hossain Ansari @ Mehbub Hossain Ansari Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the appellant : Mr. Rudranil De, Advocate Mr. Ziaul Haque, Advocate Mr. Jahangir Hossain, Advocate Mr. Soumo Charan, Advocate For the respondent no. 10 : Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Babita Pramanik, Advocate

For the respondent nos.11, 12, : Ms. Bani Israil, Advocate 13, 15, 17 & 18.

Heard & Judgment on : March 11, 2025

2 FMA 381 of 2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against an order dated January 13, 2025 passed in WPA 17974 of 2024.

Appellant alleged unauthorized construction at the behest of the several private respondents in the writ petition.

Learned Single Judge found the writ petition not to be maintainable in view of misjoinder of cause of action since the writ petitioner made blanket allegations of unauthorized construction against all the private respondents. Learned Single Judge was not satisfied with the bona fides of the writ petition also.

Private respondents are represented.

By consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

As noted above, the writ petitioner alleges unauthorized construction at the behest of several private respondents.

The issue as to whether, unauthorized construction exists as alleged or not requires a decision.

Defence of the private respondents is that, some of the private respondents possess sanction for the construction and the others claim that such constructions were made under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

The validity, legality and sufficiency of such defence is required to be decided by the appropriate authority. Construction made under the

3 FMA 381 of 2025

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana ipso facto does not obviate the requirement to comply with the existing building law.

So far as the bona fides of the writ petitioner is concerned, it is alleged as against the writ petitioner that, the writ petitioner is a relative of a person whose unauthorized construction got demolished at the behest of the respondent no.10 herein.

The relative of the writ petitioner may or may not be guilty of unauthorized construction but that does not entitle any of the private respondents to make any construction which is unauthorized.

Therefore, we are unable to accept the view that the writ petitioner lacks bona fides .

The nature of the unauthorized constructions alleged are such that it requires consideration by the Board of Councillors of the Municipality concerned under the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

In such circumstances, the Board of Councillors of the concerned Municipality will decide the issue of unauthorized constructions, in accordance with law. No doubt, the Board of Councillors will afford an opportunity of hearing to the private parties. Board of Councillors is at liberty to hear such other parties and consult such documents that it deems appropriate. Board of Councillors will endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of

4 FMA 381 of 2025

communication of this order. No doubt, they will pass a reasoned order which they will communicate to the parties forthwith thereafter.

All issues raised with regard to the unauthorized construction are kept open.

FMA 381 of 2025 and IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 are disposed of.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

I agree.

(Smita Das De, J.)

(AD)