Masrur Alam vs Binod Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 4940 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Masrur Alam vs Binod Kumar on 24 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 113




                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 1258 of 2024
                              (CAN 1 of 2024)

                               Masrur Alam
                                  -Vs-
                        Binod Kumar, The Municipal
                            Corporation & Ors.


For the Appellant      :     Mr. Swarup Banerjee, Adv.,
                             Md. Salman, Adv,
                             Mr. Subham Biswas, Adv.,
                             Mr. Vivek Raj, Adv.


For the State          :     Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv.,
                             Mrs. Rituparna Maitra, Adv.


Heard on               :     24.09.2024


Judgment on            :     24.09.2024


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-


1.   Appellant contends the Hon'ble Single Judge ought not to have

      disposed of contempt proceeding till the entire unauthorized

      structure was completely demolished.
                                    2


2.   By   order   dated   20.03.2023,    Hon'ble   Single   Judge   directed

     respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized structure in

compliance with order passed under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. No steps were taken and

contempt proceeding was initiated. In the contempt proceeding,

Hon'ble Single Judge directed demolition of the unauthorized

structure completely. Thereupon compliance report was filed. In the

compliance report, Corporation stated that the demolition has been

undertaken but demolish of all columns and beams could not be

done as it may damage adjacent premises. Relying on the report,

contempt proceeding was dropped. Liberty was given to the

appellant to initiate appropriate proceeding, if the building is re-

erected unauthorisedly in future.

3. From the materials on record, we are of the opinion the order has

been substantially complied with. Failure to remove all beams and

columns on the apprehension that their demolition may affect the

adjacent structure is well intentioned and justified. It is not with

the domain of the court in contempt jurisdiction to enforce an order

in an unrealistic manner which would endanger human life.

4. In such view of the matter, order impugned does not require

interference.

5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

6. Consequently, connected application is also dismissed.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. 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