Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kamini Bala Bar vs Maheshtala Municipality & Ors on 30 September, 2022
03. 30.09.2022
Ct. No.6
Tanmoy
M.A.T. 1434 of 2022
Kamini Bala Bar
-Versus-
Maheshtala Municipality & Ors.
With
IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2022
Mr. Nirmalya Kumar Das, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Brotindro Mullick, Adv.,
Ms. Sudipta Bera, Adv.
...for the CESC.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with
the records.
By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal and
the connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated July 22, 2022, whereby the appellant's writ petition
was disposed of.
The appellant approached the learned Single Judge
contending that a structure standing on her land was
demolished by Maheshtala Municipality without serving
any prior notice on her and the Municipality subsequently
took away the debris and the materials of the said
structure after demolition. She claimed compensation on
account of such illegal and unauthorized demolition. The
2
learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the
following observation:-
"In view of the above, leave is granted to the petitioner to file
appropriate application before the Maheshtala Municipality along
with all supporting documents of her claim and highlighting her
grievances.
In the event such a representation is made, the same shall
be considered by the Chairman of Maheshtala Municipality strictly
in accordance with law, at the earliest, but positively within a
period of eight weeks from the date of submitting the
representation.
The Chairman of the Maheshtala Municipality shall pass a
reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner
immediately thereafter.
If it transpires that the demolition was conducted without
giving any prior intimation to the petitioner, then the Municipality
shall consider the prayer for grant of compensation to the
petitioner in accordance with law."
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up
before us.
We see from the affidavit of service that the
respondent Municipality has been served. However, nobody
appears for the Municipality.
The apprehension of the appellant is that since the
Chairman had issued the demolition order, going back to
the Chairman with a claim for compensation will be futile.
We see some logic in such submission.
Accordingly, we modify the order impugned only to
the extent that if the appellant makes a representation as
she has been permitted to do by the learned Single Judge,
the same will be considered and disposed of by the Board
of Councillors of the Municipality and not by the Chairman
alone, by a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within
a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant or her authorized representative. The order so
passed shall be communicated to the appellant within a
week from the date of the order.
We have not gone into the merits of the appellant's
claim. The Board of Councillors of the Municipality shall
take an informed decision on the representation of the
appellant, if made, in accordance with law.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations
made in the stay petition shall be deemed not to have been
admitted by the appearing respondent.
The appeal being M.A.T. 1434 of 2022 and the
connected application being IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2022 are
accordingly disposed of. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
