Hafizul Haque @ Haziul Mondal & Ors vs B. N. Homes Properties Pvt. Ltd. & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2656 Cal

18.04.2023
Item No.10.
Court No.6.
   AB
                              M.A.T. 2074 of 2022
                                      With
                               I A CAN 1 of 2023

                    Hafizul Haque @ Haziul Mondal & Ors.
                                     Vs
                    B. N. Homes Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

                    Mr. A. K. Routh,
                    Ms. Ananya Mondal        ...for the Appellants.

                    Mr. Anirban Das .....for the Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Mr. Arka Kr. Nag Mr. Souvik Naiya .....for the Corporation.

By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

application are taken up for hearing together.

A judgment and order dated December 5, 2022,

whereby the writ petition of the private respondents

herein was disposed of, is under challenge in this

appeal.

The writ petitioners had approached the learned

Single Judge with the complaint that the respondent

nos.8 to 10 in the writ petition had made illegal and

unauthorized construction. There was no sanction

from Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation for such

construction. The representation filed by the writ

petitioners was not receiving the attention of the

Corporation.

The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition

by directing the Commissioner of the Corporation to

consider and dispose of the representation after giving

opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. A

reasoned order was directed to be passed. It was

further directed that in the event, the Commissioner

was of the opinion that construction had been made

by the private respondents in the writ petition, either

in violation of the sanctioned plan or without any

sanctioned plan, then necessary steps shall be taken

to deal with such unauthorized construction, in

accordance with law. It was further clarified that the

Commissioner of the Corporation shall restrict the

consideration of the representation with regard to

unauthorized construction only and shall not enter

into or decide any private dispute between the parties

regarding right, title and interest in respect of the land

in question.

Being aggrieved, the private respondents in the

writ petition are in appeal before us.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that

the appellants were not permitted to produce the

sanctioned plan and completion certificate before the

learned Single Judge. The Corporation has also not

issued any notice of hearing to the appellants. The

order under appeal should be set aside.

We do not see any reason to interfere with the

order, which is really innocuous. The issue, whether or

not the appellants have made unauthorized

construction, has been referred by the learned Single

Judge to the Commissioner of Bidhannagar Municipal

Corporation with certain directions, which we have

noted above. We, however, clarify that the

Commissioner shall afford sufficient opportunity of

hearing to the appellants as well as private

respondents herein or their authorized representatives

and permit them to produce all documents that they

may wish to rely upon. Apart from this, we make no

other comment.

The order impugned does not warrant any

interference.

Since the Commissioner of the Corporation is to

decide the issue of unauthorized construction in terms

of the learned Single Judge's order as affirmed by us,

no coercive steps should be taken against the

impugned construction till the Commissioner decides

the matter.

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. 2074 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of

along with CAN 1 of 2023.

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.)