Kakali Sengupta @ Kakoli Sarkar vs Suresh Kumar Mohata & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4992 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Kakali Sengupta @ Kakoli Sarkar vs Suresh Kumar Mohata & Ors on 25 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 25




                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 1373 of 2024
                             CAN 1 of 2024
                     Kakali Sengupta @ Kakoli Sarkar
                                Vs.
                       Suresh Kumar Mohata & Ors.


For the Appellant                   :    Mr. Arindam Banerjee


For the State                       :    Sk. Md. Galib
                                         Mr. Kapil Guha

For the municipality                :    Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee




Heard on                        :        10.9.2024 & 25.9.2024


Judgment on                     :        25.09.2024



Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-

    1. Appellant is the owner of a flat in the building. Mr. Banerjee for the

        appellant contends his client had complained of unauthorised

        constructions in the premises.

    2. During hearing before the respondent authority a sketch map was

produced and after considering the deviations from the sanctioned

plan, the respondents directed demolition of the flat of the

appellant. Learned counsel contends no notice had been given to

the appellant that the respondents intended to demolish his

unauthorised flat and he had no opportunity to present his case.

3. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent contends appellant

is not a person at whose instance the unauthorised construction

was made. He is a subsequent purchaser and has no right of

hearing.

4. We have considered the grievance of the appellant. Appellant had

approached the municipality alleging there were unauthorised

constructions in the premises. In course of enquiry it came to light

that appellant's flat itself was an unauthorised construction. Apart

from saying he had purchased the flat for valuable consideration,

nothing is placed no record to show the flat in question was

constructed as per sanctioned plan.

5. Referring to section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993,

Mr. Banerjee argues not only the person at whose instance

construction was made but the owner of the structure is also

entitled to hearing before order of demolition can be passed. Inspite

of opportunity given to the appellant, he is unable to place on

record anything to show that the flat in question was lawfully

constructed as per the sanctioned plan. In such view of the matter

we are of the opinion remitting the matter for fresh hearing would

amount to empty formality.

6. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly,

dismissed.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of judgment, order if applied for be

given to the parties on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)                               (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)




tkm