Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prabir Halder & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 October, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No.11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
MAT 1919 of 2024
(CAN 1 of 2024)
Prabir Halder & Ors.
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Adv.,
Mr. Vishal Mallick, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, AGP,
Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata, Adv.
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Prabir Maji, Adv.
Heard on : 04.10.2024
Judgment on : 04.10.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge relegating the appellants/writ petitioners to
agitate their grievances before the Civil Court.
2. Crux of the appellant's grievance flows from non-consideration of
his representation made to the Panchayat authorities alleging
unauthorized construction and the running of a saw mill by private
respondent No.5.
3. Learned Advocate for private respondent submits construction is an
old structure and not liable to be demolished.
4. It may not be out of place to note private respondent No.5
complaining that appellants and others were obstructing his
running of the saw mill had approached this Court in WPA 15680 of
2022 and a learned Single Judge directed the police authorities to
see there was no obstruction in running the mill. Subsequent
thereto, another writ petition being WPA 11523 of 2023 was filed by
the private respondent which was also disposed of observing, the
dispute between the parties is civil in nature.
5. Thereafter, a civil suit has been filed by the appellants against the
private respondent but no order of injunction has been passed in
favour of the appellants.
6. Relying on the aforesaid facts, Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view,
the grievance of the appellants ought to be agitated in the pending
civil proceeding and dismissed the writ petition.
7. Hon'ble Judge had failed to consider that the prayer in the writ
petition was for removal of unauthorized construction made by
private respondent No.5 and representation had been made to that
effect before the Panchayat authorities being annexed at pages 29-
30 of the stay application. Power is vested with the Panchayat to
make recommendation to the Sub Divisional Officer for demolition
of unauthorized construction. This issue cannot be addressed in
the civil suit pending between the parties.
8. In such view of the matter, we direct respondent No.3 Pradhan,
Radhakantapur Gram Panchayat, Gillarchat, P.S. Raidighi, Dist.
South 24-Paraganas to consider the representation of the petitioner
at pages 29-30 of the stay application and after giving opportunity
of hearing to the parties take a decision whether the construction is
an unauthorized one.
9. Needless to mention if respondent no.3 is of the view that the
construction is an unauthorized one, he shall forward its order to
the Sub Divisional Officer for necessary steps under sub-section (5)
of the said provision of law.
10. We make it clear we have not expressed any opinion with regard to
the validity of the construction which is kept open to be decided by
respondent no.3 independently and in accordance with law.
11. Respondent No.3 shall complete the enquiry and pass necessary
order within three months from the date of communication of this
order.
12. With these directions, appeal and connected application are
disposed of.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to
the parties on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
as
