Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prabir Pal & Anr vs The Maheshtala Municipality & Ors on 21 September, 2023
21.09.2023
Item No.07
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 1837 of 2023
With
I.A. No. CAN/1/2023
I.A. No. CAN/2/2023
Prabir Pal & Anr.
Vs
The Maheshtala Municipality & Ors.
Mr. S.T. Mina,
Ms. Priyanka Das,
...for the appellants/respondent
nos. 6 & 7.
Mr. Swarup Banerjee,
Mr. Vivek Kr. Tripathi,
Mr. Partha Pratim Mukhopadhyay,
Ms. Muslima Begam,
...for the respondent no.6.
Mr. R.N. Chakraborty,
Mr. M. Ahmed, ...for the Municipality.
Ms. Kakali Samajpaty,
Ms. Supriya Majumder,
...for the State respondents.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
connected applications are taken up together for
hearing.
In re : I.A. No. CAN/1/2023
This is an application for condonation of delay of
239 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being
sufficient, the delay is condoned.
I.A. No. CAN/1/2023 is, accordingly, disposed
of.
In re : MAT 1837 of 2023 & I.A. No.
CAN/2/2023
This appeal is directed against a judgment and
order dated December 20, 2022, passed in WPA 20924
of 2022, which was a writ petition filed by the
respondent no.6 herein.
It appears that the respondent no.6 herein
approached the learned Single Judge with the
grievance that the private respondents in the writ
petition who are the present appellants, have made
construction by encroaching upon private pathway.
Learned advocate representing the private respondents
in the writ petition denied such allegation. It was
submitted on their behalf that they have constructed a
boundary will on their private property.
Learned advocate for the Municipality submitted
that inspection was conducted upon notice to all
parties and they were present at the site at the time of
inspection. It appeared that there is an existing
passage approximately measuring about ten feet to
twelve feet in width. However, presently it appears
that the passage is only six to seven feet in width. The
Municipality said that the width cannot be ascertained
by the Municipality. Assistance of the BL & LRO is
required for that purpose. The learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the
parties to approach the concerned BL & LRO with
request for measurement of the passage/pathway as
per the mouza map.
Being aggrieved, the private respondents in the
writ petition have come up by way of this appeal.
Learned advocate for the appellants says that
since the pathway is a private one, the BL & LRO has
no jurisdiction or power to do anything in connection
with such pathway including taking measurement.
Learned advocate for the respondent/writ
petitioner as well as learned advocate for the State say
that the measurement has already been taken by the
BL & LRO and, therefore, the order impugned has
been carried out. Nothing remains in this appeal.
Learned advocate for the appellants says that
the BL & LRO measured a wrong plot bearing LR Dag
No.548 when the plot in question bears Dag No.526.
This submission is strongly disputed by learned
advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner.
Be that as it may, we find that the order under
appeal has been implemented. Nothing remains in
this appeal. The appellants will be at liberty to urge
the point of measurement of wrong plot of land before
the appropriate authority.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the
allegations contained in the stay application are
deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.
MAT 1837 of 2023 is disposed of along with the
application being I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2023.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, shall be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the
necessary formalities.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)
