Sivaji Sangha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

… for the Respondent no.9. Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, Mr. Souvik Ganguly … for the Respondent no.10. Mr. Santanu Chattopadhyay, Mr. Amit Roy, Ms. Madhumita Sadhukhan

¶10

… for the Respondent no.11.

¶11

The present Public Interest Litigation (in short PIL) has been preferred praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents ‘ to take immediate steps to stop construction on the acquired land comprised in holding no 82 Narasingha Dutta Road with ward no 24 of Howrah Municipal for public Purpose for Park and Greenery under Scheme no IV of Howrah improvement Trust until implementation of Park and Greenery ’.

¶12

Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that holding No. 82,

¶13

2

¶14

Narasingha Dutta Road, P.S. – Bantra, District – Howrah was acquired and handed over to Howrah Improvement Trust (in short, HIT) in the year 1971, as would be explicit from the information furnished by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Howrah Improvement Trust), Howrah vide memo dated 1^st August, 2022 in response to an application under the Right to Information Act.

¶15

He further submits that the land acquired for public benefit and for utilization as a park cannot be utilized by the private respondents depriving the people at large. In the said conspectus, immediate interference is called for, moreso when, the complaints lodged by the petitioner have also not been addressed.

¶16

Mr. Anirban Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.9 submits that the PIL itself needs to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, inasmuch as the respondent no.9 along with another has already preferred a title suit, being Title Suit no.293 of 2024 and in the same an application for addition of party has been filed by the petitioner herein. The said suit is still pending. Let the documents, as placed, be kept on record.

¶17

Drawing our attention to the application made for addition of party under order 1 Rule 10(2) of

¶18

3

¶19

the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner, Mr. Mitra submits that there is no averment in the same as regards utilization of the land acquired by HIT for the purpose of park and greenery.

¶20

Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent no.11 and denies the contention of the petitioner.

¶21

Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent no.10 and submits that pertaining to the land in question, the said respondent has also filed a title suit, being Title Suit no.743 of 2026 in which K.M.D.A., impleading H.I.T. wings, which presently manages the affairs of HIT. In the said suit an interim order was passed on 17^th June, 2026 restraining the defendants from creating any sorts of disturbances and/or from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful occupation of the concerned land and also restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance or interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The said suit is still pending.

¶22

In reply, Mr. Mitra submits that the respondent no.9 initially preferred the Title Suit no.1382 of 2021, impleading the Secretary of the petitioner but subsequently, the said respondent withdrew the title suit and he along with another presently filed the Title Suit no.293 of 2024 without

¶23

4

¶24

impleading the Secretary of the petitioner or the petitioner. From such sequence facts it is evident that the said respondent seeks a declaration in the absence of the petitioner.

¶25

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶26

Indisputably, pertaining to the issue urged in the present PIL, two title suits, being Title Suit no.293 of 2024 and Title Suit no.743 of 2026 are pending. In the former suit as the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party thereto, it has already filed an application under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said conspectus, it cannot be ruled out that the issues urged in the present writ petition involves disputed question of facts which cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a PIL. Travelling into an area to adjudicate the titular issues would be a wrongful exercise of PIL jurisdiction moreso when, the private interest of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.

¶27

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the present PIL, however, as two title suits pertaining to the issues urged herein are pending before the competent Court, the petitioner would

¶28

5

¶29

be at liberty to take appropriate steps in the same, in accordance with law.

¶30

With the above observations and directions, the present PIL is disposed of.

¶31

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶32

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Sivaji Sangha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaji Sangha 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Pritam Majumder

Dolly Mondal and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The General Manager(Postal Accounts & Finance) Vs Pannalal Basu & Ors.

Shyamal Kr Das Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Aruna Dey(Ghosh) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Samir Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.