Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sudarsan Manna & Anr vs Raja Chatterjee & Ors on 16 October, 2023
23.
16-10-2023
(Ct. no.06)
debajyoti
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
MAT 1774 of 2023
+
IA NO:CAN/1/2023
+
CAN/2/2023
Sudarsan Manna & Anr.
Vs.
Raja Chatterjee & Ors.
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Rajdeep Sinha
... For the Appellants.
Mr. Shuvashish Sengupta,
Mr. Aman Agarwal,
Mr. Dibyendu Mondal
... For Private Respondent.
Mr. Indranil Roy,
Mr. Tapas Ballav Mondal
... For the State.
Re : CAN 2 of 2023
This is an application for condonation of delay of
207 days, as per report of the Additional Stamp
Reporter, in filing the appeal. Causes shown being
sufficient, the delay is condoned.
The application being CAN 2 of 2023 is, thus,
allowed.
Since no affidavits have been called for, the
allegations made in the petition for condonation of
delay are deemed not to be admitted by the
respondents.
Re : MAT/1774/2023 & CAN/1/2023
By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal
and the application are taken up together for hearing.
A judgment and order dated January 16, 2023,
whereby the writ petition of the respondent no.1
herein, being WPA 19758 of 2022, was disposed of by
a learned Single Judge of this Court, is under
challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the private
respondents in the writ petition.
It appears that the respondent/writ petitioner
approached the learned Single Judge with a grievance
that the private respondents in the writ petition have
made unauthorized construction at R.S. Dag No.429,
Hal Dag No.457, comprising an area of 7 decimals
under Mouza-Athligori, Police Station - Contai, Ward
No.15, within the territorial limits of Contai
Municipality. The writ petitioner complained that in
spite of he having made a representation to the
Contai Municipality, the same did not receive the
attention of the authorities.
The learned Judge noted that nobody appeared
before Her Ladyship on behalf of the private
respondents (the appellants herein). However, the
learned Judge did not defer the hearing of the writ
petition, as in Her Ladyship's opinion, the order she
proposed to pass, would not prejudice anybody. The
learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the
following directions:
" The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of by directing the respondent
no.6 to consider and dispose of the
representation made by the petitioner
strictly in accordance with law, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to all
the necessary parties including the
petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of communication of
a copy of this order. The said
respondent shall pass a reasoned order
and communicate the same to all the
necessary parties including the
petitioner immediately thereafter.
In the event the aforesaid
respondent is of the considered opinion
that the construction has been made
either in violation of the plan
sanctioned or devoid the sanction plan,
then necessary steps shall be taken to
deal with such unauthorized
construction, in accordance with law.
The aforesaid respondent shall
restrict the consideration of the
representation with regard to
unauthorized construction only and not
enter into or decide any private dispute
of the parties regarding right, title
and interest in respect of the aforesaid
land. "
Being aggrieved, the private respondents in the
writ petition have come up by way of this appeal.
Learned advocate for the appellants says that
the matter was mentioned before the learned Single
Judge at the instance of the writ petitioner and
upgradation was obtained. However, the appellants
were not intimated of such upgradation. That is the
reason why the appellants could not be represented
before the learned Single Judge when the matter was
taken up for hearing and disposal.
We do not think that it is necessary to get into
that controversy. We do not find anything prejudicial
in the impugned order insofar as the appellants are
concerned. The appellants will have full opportunity
of participating in the proceedings before the Board of
Councillors of the Municipality. Any inspection that
may be held by the Board of Councillors or on its
behalf, will be upon notice to the appellants as well
as the writ petitioner. Due opportunity of hearing
will be granted to the parties by the Board of
Councillors. The parties will be at liberty to place
before the Board of Councillors such documents as
they may be advised and the same will be duly
considered by the Board of Councillors. The Board of
Councillors shall pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law within a period of three months
from date. Needless to say, if the Board of
Councillors finds merit in the complaint made by the
writ petitioner, necessary steps will be taken by the
Board in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid modification of the order
impugned, the appeal and the connected application
stand disposed of.
Affidavits not having been called for, the
allegations in the stay petition shall be deemed not to
have been admitted by the respondents.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance
of all necessary formalities.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)
