Surojit Mahapatra vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 788 Cal

30.01.2023
Item No.8.
Court No.6.
   AB
                               M.A.T. 1650 of 2022
                                       With
                                IA CAN 1 of 2022

                               Surojit Mahapatra
                                       Vs
                       The State of West Bengal & Others

                    Mr. Dipanjan Datta,
                    Mr. Sayan Datta,
                    Ms. Rituparna Saha,
                    Ms. Reshma Chatterjee,
                    Ms. Tanusree Bag,
                    Ms. Manali Sarkar      ....For the Appellant.

                    Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
                    Ms. Kumkum Das        .....For the State.

                    Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya
                                  ....For the Respondent Nos.11-14.

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 May 17, 2022, whereby the appellant's

writ petition being WPA No.6315 of 2020 was disposed

of by granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to

approach the Competent Authority with his grievance.

The appellant had approached the learned

Single Judge with the grievance that the private

respondents had made unauthorized construction on

the concerned plot of land but the concerned Gram

Panchayet was not taking steps despite complaint

having been lodged by the appellant.

Before the learned Single Judge, learned

Advocate for the concerned Gram Panchayet submitted

that the area, wherein the impugned construction has

been raised, is a notified area under a Development

Authority and as such, the Gram Panchayet was not

the plan sanctioning Authority. It was further stated

that the records in the Office of the Gram Panchayet

did not show that any building plan for the impugned

construction was sanctioned by the Gram Panchayet.

It was further submitted before the learned

Judge on behalf of the private respondents as well as

the concerned Zilla Parishad that as the building was

G+3 storeyed, the sanctioning Authority was the Zilla

Parishad and the Zilla Parishad had accorded sanction

to the building plan submitted by the private

respondents, on December 18, 2019. It was further

submitted that a Completion Certificate has also been

issued by the Zilla Parishad in respect of the

impugned construction.

Learned Advocate for the appellant points out

that the learned Single Judge has recorded that by a

notice dated July 23, 2019, the concerned Sub

Divisional Officer had directed the private respondents

to stop the construction. However, the private

respondents disobeyed such order and continued with

the construction. Further, the plan was allegedly

sanctioned on December 18, 2019. This would indicate

that in July, 2019, when the 'Stop Work Notice' was

issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, the private

respondents were already in the process of making

construction without having any sanctioned plan

therefor. Hence, learned Advocate for the appellant

says that the construction is unauthorized.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The fact remains that the construction has been

completed. Completion Certificate has been issued by

the concerned Zilla Parishad. The learned Judge has

rightly declined to interfere and has disposed of the

writ petition by granting liberty to the appellant/writ

petitioner to approach the concerned Zilla Parishad

with his grievance.

Learned Advocate for the appellant says that the

appellant is not aware as to which is the Development

Authority, which has jurisdiction over the area, in

which the construction has been made. The appellant

will be at liberty to seek clarification from the

appropriate Officer in the State Government. If such

clarification is sought, the same shall be furnished

forthwith.

We do not see any apparent infirmity in the

order under appeal. We do not interfere. However, if

the appellant finds that the Competent Authority is

not the Zilla Parishad but any other Authority, he will

be at liberty to make his representation to such

Authority instead of the Zilla Parishad. Such Authority

in that case, shall decide such representation by way

of a reasoned order, in accordance with law, after

giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties,

including the appellant and the private respondents

herein and also any other party, who may have

acquired any right, title or interest in respect of the

impugned construction. If the representation is made

within four weeks from date, the same shall be

disposed of as aforesaid, within eight weeks from the

date of receipt of the representation. If the Authority

finds merit in the grievance of the appellant,

appropriate consequential steps shall be taken by the

Authority.

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.1650 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed

of along with IA CAN 1 of 2022.

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.)