Manju Mondal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6894 Cal

23.09.2022
Item no.1
Court No.6.
   AB
                                     M.A.T. 1564 of 2022
                                             With
                                      IA CAN 1 of 2022

                               Manju Mondal & Anr.
                                        Vs
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                      Mr. Subir Sanyal,
                      Mr. Balai Lal Sahoo            ....for the Appellants.

                      Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty,
                      Mr. Meheboob Ahmed
                               ....for the Maheshtala Municipality.

                      Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal)
                                     ....for the Respondent No.9.

Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Mr. Aritra Ghosh .....for the State.

This appeal is directed against a Judgment and

Order dated September 20, 2022, whereby the

appellants' writ petition was dismissed.

The appellants had approached the learned

Single Judge challenging an order of demolition passed

by the Maheshtala Municipality on September 13,

2022. The construction was made under the Pradhan

Mantri Awas Yojana Housing for All Scheme. The

private respondent no.9 in the writ petition

complained of unauthorized construction by the

appellants. That ultimately led to the order of

demolition being passed. There was an earlier writ

petition wherein orders were also passed which we are

presently not adverting to.

One of the questions is whether the construction

raised by the appellants is in accordance with a

sanctioned plan. The appellants say that the

beneficiaries under the aforesaid Scheme do not

require to obtain separate sanctioned plan from the

Municipality. There is a model plan sanctioned by the

Municipality, which is to be followed by all the

beneficiaries under the said Scheme. The impugned

construction has been made following such model plan

and strictly adhering thereto.

Learned Advocate for the Municipality agrees

that indeed, there is such a model plan, which has

been sanctioned by the Municipality and the appellant

no.1 is a beneficiary under the aforesaid Scheme. In

this connection, our attention has been drawn to page

79 of the stay petition, which is a report dated

13.08.2020 submitted by the Chairperson, Board of

Administrators of Maheshtala Municipality, which is to

the following effect:

"1. Arup Mondal, the private respondent is not the beneficiary under Pradhan Mantri Abas Yojana (PMAY-Urban)-House for all scheme. The name of the beneficiary is Manju Mondal W/O Late Benu Mondal. Arup Mondal is the son of the beneficiary. Land measuring about 4 decimal at L.R. Dag no.478 under Mouza Bangla has been given to Manju Mondal, the beneficiary under HFA through

NOC by Jhuma Rani Mondal. Arup Kumar Mondal and Mousumi Mondal (Adak) as per affidavit before the Notary Public at Alipore.

2. Layout was given by the Technical wing of HFA on the said land in presence of the beneficiary. First instalment of Rs.63,000/- was released in her favour.

3. Layout as per sanctioned model plan has been given.

4. Construction has been made upto plinth level. A photocopy is attached.

5. It appears that the sunshade of the house of the writ petitioner is about to intrude into the land of the beneficiary."

In view of such submission, we deem it

appropriate to call for a report in the form of affidavit

from the Municipality in response to the averments in

the stay petition. Such report will be filed within two

weeks after the Puja Vacation (14.11.2022). Copies of

such report will be made available to learned

Advocates for the other parties. The appellants will be

at liberty to file their response in the form of affidavit

to such report before the next date of hearing with

copies to learned Advocates for the other parties.

There also appears to be a dispute regarding

demarcation of land between the appellants and the

private respondent, who are neighbours. We find that

the Municipality had, by a letter dated November 26,

2020, requested the concerned Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer to arrange for demarcation of land

between the appellants and the private respondent.

There was no response to the said letter nor did the

Block Land and Land Reforms Officer act as per the

request made by the said letter.

We are of the view that the dispute will be

resolved to a great extent if the lands of the appellants

and the private respondent are demarcated. We direct

the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer,

being the respondent no.7 herein, to undertake such

exercise and file a report before us on the next date of

hearing. The appellants and the private respondent as

also the Municipality will render all assistance and

extend all cooperation to the Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer to carry out the exercise of

demarcation of their lands.

List the matter three weeks after the Puja

Vacation (21.11.2022).

Let status quo in respect of the impugned

construction be maintained till the end of November,

2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the

Municipality says that a contempt application has

been filed against the Chairperson of the Municipality.

Since we are in the process of hearing the appeal, we

request the learned Single Judge to defer the hearing

of the contempt application.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)