Tripura High Court
Shri Pravanjan Kishore Devvarman ... vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 6 September, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.216/2021
Shri Pravanjan Kishore Devvarman & others
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanmay Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Pal, Advocate,
Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate,
Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
06/09/2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)
This appeal is filed by the private respondents to challenge the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2021 in WP(C) No.140 of
2021.
2. Case has a chequered history. The appellants herein and the
original petitioners are occupants of adjoining lands situated in the city of
Agartala. The petitioners are in the process of developing their land. In the
process of development they had started construction of a retention wall
adjoining the land of the appellants. The case of the appellants consistently
has been that such retention wall did not have sufficient foundation or
strength and on account of which in the past the wall had collapsed causing
considerable damage and in the future also there is every possibility of the
structure not being stable which in turn would damage the property of the
appellants. On such basis, the appellants have been objecting to the
construction of the petitioners being carried further. Previously the appellants
had filed WP(C) No.648 of 2019 which was disposed of on 16.01.2020 by the
Single Judge providing that unless the builders satisfy the municipal
authorities that sufficiently strong retention wall has been constructed by
them between the boundary of their plot and that of the appellants, they would
not be allowed to continue with the construction of the proposed residential
complex.
3. According to the original petitioners even after providing for
such retention wall and supplying sufficient proof thereof to the AMC, the
AMC did not grant permission for construction. They, therefore, filed above
mentioned WP(C) No.140 of 2021 in which the present appellants were not
joined as respondents. They, therefore, applied and were allowed to be joined.
Before the learned Single Judge it was pointed out that the petitioners had
produced certificates from private agencies certifying the structure strength of
the retention wall. The AMC desired to examine such certificate further. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, in the impugned judgment directed the AMC
to take such steps expeditiously and further provided that if no final decision
is taken within three months, the permission should be deemed to have been
granted.
4. In matters as the present one, would be uncomfortable with the
direction for deemed permission. However, in the present case, a situation
where the deeming fiction would apply, has not arisen. Learned counsel Mrs.
Sujata Deb (Gupta) for the original petitioners stated under instructions that
pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge the AMC has taken a
conscious decision and approved the further construction of the petitioners
vide a decision dated 27.04.2021. So far as this Court is concerned, therefore,
no further inquiry is necessary. Even otherwise, we see no reason to interfere
with the decision of the learned Single Judge which only directed the AMC to
take a final decision.
5. While disposing of this appeal, however, it is stated that if the
appellants have any dispute about the legality of the permission granted by
the AMC, it would be for the appellants to pursue remedies as may be
available in law. Writ petition for such purpose would not be a proper remedy
since any such dispute would require examination of contested facts.
6. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
