Disposed¶20

Tushar Gupta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Jul 2025WPA/7654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 7654 of 2023, Tushar Gupta v. State of West Bengal & others (with Municipality as appearing party), decided 22.07.2025 by Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. Petition alleging Municipal inaction against respondent no. 6's unauthorized snacks-business structure; after Municipality reported demolition and removal from petitioner's boundary wall and Dwarir Road, petition disposed of as redressed, no costs; obiter expectation that Municipality prevent encroachment on its land. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

No fresh relief ordered; the writ petition was disposed of as its grievances stood redressed upon removal of the unauthorized structure, with no order as to costs. ¶20

Tushar Gupta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No fresh relief ordered; the writ petition was disposed of as its grievances stood redressed upon removal of the unauthorized structure, with no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned Municipality was guilty of inaction in removing the temporary structure erected by respondent no. 6, who was operating a snacks business from it. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

As the grievances ventilated in the writ petition have been redressed — the Municipality reporting that respondent no. 6 demolished the unauthorized structure and removed it from the petitioner's boundary wall and from the municipal road (Dwarir Road) — nothing further needs to be decided and the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Key takeaways

Observation expressed as an expectation rather than an adjudication: the Municipality is expected not to allow any person or authority to encroach upon any part or parcel of its land, nor to permit anyone to utilize Municipality land for personal purposes; the petitioner's complaint about other encroachers was expressly stated to be outside the subject matter of this writ petition.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 7654 of 2023, decided 22.07.2025, Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) by Mr. Tushar Gupta alleging inaction of the concerned Municipality in removing a temporary structure erected by respondent no. 6, who ran a snacks business from it. By order dated 25th June 2025 the Court had directed the Municipality to report whether respondent no. 6 had encroached upon Municipality-owned land without prior permission from the competent authority and whether removal action had been initiated. At the hearing, the Municipality's advocate submitted a report, taken on record, recording that respondent no. 6 had already demolished the unauthorized structure and removed it both from the petitioner's boundary wall and from the municipal road, Dwarir Road. Holding the grievances redressed, the Court disposed of the petition without deciding anything further and made no order as to costs. The Court additionally observed (as an expectation, expressly noting that the complaint about other encroachers lay outside the subject matter of the petition) that the Municipality should not allow any person or authority to encroach upon any part or parcel of its land or permit its use for personal purposes.

125 22.07. 2025

Ct. No. 07

WPA 7654 of 2023

Mr. Tushar Gupta Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal and others. ---------------

¶6

¶7

Mrs. Rita Sinha, Mrs. Tapati Samanta.

¶8

… for the petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. Sipra Majumdar, Ms. Sangeeta Roy.

¶10

… for the State.

¶11

Mr. Mir Anuruzzaman, … for the Municipality.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed alleging inaction on the part of the concerned Municipality in removing the temporary structure erected by respondent no. 6, from which respondent no. 6 was operating a snacks business.

¶13

By an order dated 25th June 2025, this Court directed the Municipality to submit a report indicating whether Respondent No. 6 had encroached upon land owned by the Municipality without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. The Municipality was further directed to state in the report whether appropriate action had been initiated for the removal of such encroachment.

¶14

During the course of today’s hearing of the present writ petition, Mr. Mir Annurazzaman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipality, submitted a report indicating that Respondent No. 6 has already demolished the unauthorized structure and removed it both from the petitioner’s boundary wall and from the

¶15

¶16

municipal road, namely Dwarir Road. The report submitted by Mr. Mir Annurazzaman is taken on record.

¶17

Mrs. Rita Sinha, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that other persons, who are also encroaching upon land belonging to the Municipality, are running various types of businesses, and the Municipality is not taking appropriate steps to remove such unauthorized encroachers.

¶18

This fact is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. However, it is expected that the Municipality shall not allow any person or authority to encroach upon any part or parcel of its land, nor permit anyone to utilize land belonging to the Municipality for their personal purposes.

¶19

As the grievances ventilated in the present writ petition have been redressed, nothing further needs to be decided in the present writ petition.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶22

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)

¶23

Tushar Gupta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Gupta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Najrul and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sandeep Karak Vs the Chief Electoral Officer and Ors.

Chinmayee Das Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Dhrubajyoti Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Indranath Mukherjee Vs United Commericial Bank (Uco Bank) & Ors.

Sandip Das Vs the Howrah Municipal Corp. & Ors.