Biswanath Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1569 Cal

02.   02.03.2023
      Ct. No.6
      Tanmoy


                                          MAT 216 of 2023

                                      Biswanath Mondal
                                            -Versus-
                                The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                                With
                                        IA No: CAN/1/2023


                       Mr. Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.
                                              ...for the appellant.
                       Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.,
                       Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.,
                       Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv.
                                          ...for the Bidhannagar
                                             Municipal Corporation.

                       Mr. Kamalesh Jha, Adv.,
                       Mr. Abhijit Saha, Adv.,
                       Ms. S. Ghosh, Adv.
                                           ...for the private respondent.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with

the records.

The appellant's writ petition being WPA 21515 of

2022 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by a

judgment and order dated January 11, 2023. Hence this

appeal.

The appellant had earlier approached this Court by

filing WPA No. 332 of 2022, contending that the private

respondent in that writ petition, who is also the private

respondent in the present proceedings, namely,

Upendranath Goswami, had made unauthorized

construction on a plot of land adjacent to the appellant's

land. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned

Single Judge by a judgment and order dated May 17,

2022, directing the Competent Authority of the

Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (in short, "the

Corporation") to conduct a local inspection, give

opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a

reasoned order.

Pursuant to such order, the Commissioner of the

Corporation caused an inspection to be made.

Thereafter, he held a hearing on August 13, 2022, at his

chamber. Both the appellant and the private respondent

herein attended such meeting. Subsequently, the

Commissioner of the Corporation passed a reasoned

order dated September 2, 2022, holding that neither the

appellant herein, nor the private respondent had a valid

sanctioned plan for construction of their respective

buildings. Accordingly, he directed both the parties to

demolish their respective buildings.

Challenging the said order of the Commissioner,

the present appellant approached the learned Single

Judge in the present round of litigation. The learned

Judge considered the order of the Commissioner and

observed that opportunity was given to the petitioner for

production of documents in support of the construction

he has raised. Since he was unable to produce any such

document, demolition order has been passed. The

learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Before us, learned Advocate for the appellant

contends that he produced a sanctioned plan before the

Commissioner of the Corporation at the time of hearing.

However, the Commissioner refused to take the same on

record. He produces, what he says is an original of a

sanctioned plan. Let a copy of such document be made

over to learned Advocate for the Corporation who will

obtain appropriate instructions in the matter and come

back on March 10, 2023, when the matter will be listed

again.

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