Sanjib Bhattacharyya vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2911 Cal

   D/L
Item No. 9
25.04.2023
 KOLE
                              MAT 2075 of 2022
                                    With
                             IA No. CAN 1 of 2023

                             Sanjib Bhattacharyya
                                     -Vs.-
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.


             Mr. Sakya Sen,
             Mr. Arindam Paul,
                                                        ... for the appellant.

             Mr. Sonal Sinha,
                                                ... for the respondent no. 11.

Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Mr. S. Dutta, Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee, Mr. S. Nayek, ... for the respondent no. 12.

Mr. Sayantan Bose, Mr. A. Mookherjee, Mr. Sattik Raut, ... for the respondent no. 13.

A judgment and order dated September 22, 2022,

interim in nature in the sense that the writ petition is still

pending, is under challenge in this appeal.

It appears that on an earlier occasion the appellant

herein had approached a learned Single Judge of this Court

with the grievance that the private respondent no. 12 is

making unauthorized construction on the concerned plot of

land without obtaining requisite conversion. The learned

Single Judge relegated the matter to the Additional District

Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, for taking a decision in the

matter.

The Additional District Magistrate, after hearing the

parties passed an order dated March 15, 2022, holding that

there is a sanctioned plan in respect of the impugned

construction. This order of the Additional District

Magistrate was challenged by the appellant herein before the

learned Single Judge in the present round of litigation.

The learned Judge directed exchange of affidavits

observing that the issues raised in the writ petition involved

mixed questions of law and facts. The learned Judge

observed that there is no scope of any interim order in view

of the specific finding of the Additional District Magistrate

that sanction had been granted in accordance with law and

the building was also constructed in accordance with law.

Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sakya Sen, learned

Counsel says that it was really not necessary to direct

exchange of affidavits. The order of the Additional District

Magistrate must stand or fall on its own strength. The

respondent no. 12 is merrily carrying on with unauthorized

construction. Some restraint order ought to be passed.

We are told that exchange of affidavits in respect of

the writ petition is complete. We are not inclined to

interfere. The learned Judge has not decided anything

finally.

However, seeing the anxiety of the appellant and his

apprehension that the private respondent no. 12 is carrying

on with unauthorized construction and is in the process of

creating third party rights in respect thereof, which is of

course disputed by learned Advocate for the private

respondent no. 12, we request the learned Single Judge to

give some precedence to the present writ petition to the

extent, the business of the court may permit. Needless to

say, any action taken by the respondents during the

pendency of the writ petition will abide by the result of the

writ petition.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations

made in the stay application are deemed not to be admitted

by the respondents.

The appeal and the connected application are,

accordingly, disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be

supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

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