Joydeb Naskar & Anr vs The Bidhannagar Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7229 Cal

30.09.2022
Item No.6.
Court No.6.
   AB
                                M.A.T. 1666 of 2022
                                        With
                                 IA CAN 1 of 2022

                          Joydeb Naskar & Anr.
                                   Vs
              The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Others

                    Mr. Mainak Bose,
                    Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastawa,
                    Mr. Supratic Roy        ....for the Appellants.

                    Mr. Partha Chakraborty,
                    Ms. Sharmistha China
                                     .....for the Respondent No.5.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Tirthankar Dey .....for the Corporation.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

application are taken up for hearing together.

This appeal is directed against a Judgment and

Order dated September 28, 2022, whereby the writ

petition of the appellants was dismissed.

The appellants/writ petitioners approached the

learned Single Judge challenging a Notice dated May

2, 2022, issued by the Bidhannagar Municipal

Corporation (in short "BMC") intimating that

demolition of the unauthorized structure constructed

by the appellants will be carried out by BMC and the

appellants were called upon to vacate the property

within a period of seven days from the date of issuance

of the order.

The learned Judge noticed a report that was

filed by BMC recording that no sanction had been

obtained by the appellants from BMC for making the

impugned construction. Learned Advocate

representing the appellants/writ petitioners candidly

submitted before the learned Judge that there is no

plan following which construction had been made. The

learned Judge dismissed the writ petition observing as

follows:

"Law bars any type of construction without obtaining any permission/sanction from the concerned authority. The petitioners have taken risk to make construction without obtaining any sanctioned plan. No amount of leniency should be shown to a party who makes construction without any sanctioned plan/ permission and approaches Court for relief when steps are taken to remove such unauthorized construction.

At this stage, it does not appear there is any reason to interfere with the order impugned directing vacating of the premises for the purpose of effecting the demolition.

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

Before us, the appellants tried to place various

previous orders of learned Single Judges of this Court

in other proceedings. However, to our simple query,

whether or not there is a sanctioned plan in favour of

the appellants, there is no answer. Indeed, there can

be no answer since it was admitted before the learned

Single Judge that there is no sanctioned plan.

We are in complete agreement with the learned

Judge that no leniency should be shown to a person,

who takes law in his own hand and makes

construction without obtaining permission from the

concerned Authority. The same cannot be

countenanced in a society governed by the Rule of

Law. One may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Kumar

Mukherjee Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation &

Others reported at (2013)5 SCC336. If completely

illegal constructions are allowed to remain, the

common people at large will feel cheated. We see no

reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations in the stay application are deemed not to

be admitted by the respondents.

M.A.T. No.1666 of 2022 is, accordingly,

dismissed along with IA CAN 1 of 2022 without,

however, any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

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