Calcutta High Court
Pramod Bajaj And Ors vs Kolkata Municipal on 21 March, 2023
OD-1
APO /27/2023
WPO/906/2022
GA/1/2023
GA/2/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
PRAMOD BAJAJ AND ORS.
-Versus-
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Tarique Quasimudin, Advocate.
Mrs. Zainab Tahur, Advocate
...for the Appellants
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Advocate
Ms. Manisha Nath, Advocate
for Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Naba Kr. Das, Advocate,
Mr. Subhabrata Das, Advocate
For State Respondent.
Ms. Sabnam Sultana, Advocate
For the private respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Date: March 21, 2023.
THE COURT: Erroneously, the e-challan issued against
payment of court fees has been submitted in the Appellate
Side, although this is an Original Side matter. There is no
dispute that the requisite amount of court fees has been paid.
Court fees on this appeal, therefore, be deemed to have
been paid.
Re: GA No. 1 of 2023:
This is an application for leave to prefer appeal against
the judgment and order dated February 9, 2023 whereby
WPO/906/2022 was disposed of by the learned single Judge.
The applicants were not parties to the writ petition. However,
they say that they are occupiers of various portions of the
building in question, which has been directed to be
demolished by the learned single Judge. Hence, they are vitally
affected.
Leave is granted to the applicants to prefer this appeal.
GA No. 1 of 2023 is disposed of.
Re: GA No. 2 of 2023
APO/27/2023.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated February 9, 2022 passed in WP/906/2022. The learned
single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by directing the
Municipal Commissioner or his delegate, Director General of
Building, to take steps "for demolition of any unauthorised
construction at the subject premises without being swayed by
the fact that the unauthorised portions are occupied and may
have become old out of passage of time."
The appellants say that they ought to have been
impleaded as parties in the writ petition. They say that the
building is not completely unauthorised. There is an old
building permit of 1959, copy whereof has been disclosed as
part of the stay petition.
From the history of the case recorded by the learned
single Judge, it appears that there is no risk of immediate
collapse of the building. Demolition, if at all, can be made
subsequent to the result of the appeal which we propose to
hear out.
Let affidavit of opposition to the stay petition be filed by
the respondents within a fortnight from date (April 04, 2023);
reply, thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter (April
11, 2023).
List the matter after three weeks (April 11, 2023). We
propose to hear out the appeal and the stay application
together on the adjourned date.
The respondent no. 4/writ petitioner shall disclose
along with her affidavit-in-opposition all papers that were
available before the learned single Judge so that the appeal
can be heard out conveniently.
Let there be a stay of operation of the order impugned
for 4 weeks from date (April 18, 2023) or until further order,
whichever is earlier.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)
dg/
