Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bidhannagar Municipal ... vs Samir Bhattacharya & Ors on 8 February, 2022
10.
08-02-2022
debajyoti
(Ct. no.06)
MAT 816 of 2021
with
IA NO:CAN/1/2021
Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Vs.
Samir Bhattacharya & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
Mr. Subhankar Das
... For the Appellants.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty,
Mr. Dyutimoy Paul
... For Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajarshi Basu,
Mr. S. T. Mina
... For the State.
Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court be taken on
record.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
application are taken up together for hearing.
The writ petitioner/respondent no.1 approached
the learned Single Judge essentially for
implementation of an order dated January 06, 2015
passed in M.P. Case No.346 of 2014 by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate and Sub Divisional Officer,
Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas, whereby the
Executive Officer of the Bidhannagar Municipality was
directed to make necessary arrangement for taking
possession of public land located in front and side of
the permanent booth of the writ petitioner after
evicting all unauthorized occupants from such public
land.
The learned Judge noted that the said order of
the Sub Divisional Magistrate was carried in appeal by
the alleged encroachers. Such appeal was disposed of
on contest by the Additional Sessions Judge, 6th
Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, by a judgment
dated March 17, 2015 passed in Criminal Revision
No.08 of 2015. The criminal revisional application
was dismissed and the order of the Sub Divisional
Magistrate was upheld. The learned Judge observed
that the said order having attained finality, the same
must be executed by the erstwhile Bidhannagar
Municipality, which is presently the Bidhannagar
Municipal Corporation. Direction was given by the
learned Judge for immediate implementation of the
Sub Divisional Magistrate's order dated January 06,
2015.
Being aggrieved, the Municipal Corporation is
before us by way of this appeal.
Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Saha Roy,
learned counsel, submits that the writ petitioner has
no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. He has
not renewed his license since 2015 and he has no
right to occupy the area that he is in occupation of. It
is very difficult to implement the order of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate because of resistance from local
people.
We are not impressed with the submission
made on behalf of the Corporation. The order of the
Sub Divisional Magistrate has attained finality. The
same must be implemented. The learned Single
Judge has not committed any error in directing
implementation of the said order. We, therefore, see
no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
Insofar as the status of the writ petitioner is
concerned, according to the Municipal Corporation, he
is a trespasser. Unless he renews the license with the
Municipal Corporation, his occupation will continue to
be illegal. In this appeal, we are not going into the
nature of the possession of the writ petitioner of the
premises which he occupies. However, in the event
the Municipal Corporation is of the view that the writ
petitioner is in unauthorized or illegal occupation of
the premises, which is owned by the Corporation, the
Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate
steps against him and this order shall in no manner
stand in the way thereof.
We put on record that Mr. Chakraborty, learned
advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner, has
seriously disputed the submission made on behalf of
the Municipal Corporation.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
