Suvojit Gupta & Anr vs The Bidhannagar Municipal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7108 Cal

   D/L
Item No. 18
13.10.2023
  KOLE
                               MAT 1928 of 2023
                                   With
                             IA No. CAN 1 of 2023

                           Suvojit Gupta & Anr.
                                   -Vs.-
                 The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.


              Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
              Mr. D. Roy,
              Mr. Tapas Kr. Saha,
              Mr. Manojit Pal,
              Mr. B. Chowdhury,
                                                        ... for the appellants.
              Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
              Mr. T. Dey,
              Mr. A. Kr. Nag,
                                                              ... for the BMC.
              Mr. Bikram Banerjee,
              Mr. S. Dasgupta,
              Mr. S. Ghosh,
                                          ... for the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order

dated September 20, 2023, whereby the writ petition of the

appellants being WPA 16874 of 2023 was disposed of by a

learned Single Judge of this Court.

The appellants had approached the learned Single

Judge challenging an order of demolition passed by the

Commissioner, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation on May

4, 2023. The learned Judge observed that the writ

petitioners were raising construction relying upon a plan

issued in favour of one Juhi Marketing Private Limited in the

year 2011. The learned Judge held that the writ petitioners

were not entitled to raise construction on the strength of a

plan sanctioned in favour of some other party. Accordingly,

the learned Judge refrained from exercising jurisdiction in

the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners are before us by

way of this appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at

some length.

The appellants say that the learned Judge erred in

holding that the concerned sanctioned plan was in the name

of one Juhi Marketing Private Limited. The appellants have

produced a plan sanctioned in favour of the owners of the

property in question in the year 2011. They say that the plan

was renewed in 2014. They further say that construction

activity was started by the previous developer on the

strength of such plan. The previous developer left the work

unfinished. Subsequently, the appellants came into the

picture having entered into a development agreement with

the owners of the land in question, in the year 2022.

Learned Advocate for the private respondents says

that the plan, even assuming that the same was sanctioned in

2011 and renewed in 2014 would have lapsed latest by 2017.

This submission is disputed by the appellants.

The response of the Municipality will be crucial for

deciding the issues involved in this appeal. No affidavits

were called for by the learned Single Judge before disposing

of the writ petition. Hence, the respective stands of the

parties are not on affidavit.

Let affidavit in opposition be filed by 23.11.2023.

Reply thereto, if any, be filed by 30.11.2023.

List the matter on December 4, 2023.

It appears that the demolition order was passed only

on the ground that the sanctioned building plan was in

favour of Juhi Marketing Private Limited. The appellants,

however, have produced a plan sanctioned in favour of the

owners of the property. Since disputed questions are

involved which can be resolved only on affidavits, we direct

that the demolition order will not be given effect to till

December 15, 2023, or until further order, whichever is

earlier.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)