[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shri Samir Ranjan Barman vs The Agartala Municipal Corporation on 10 March, 2026
Page 1 of 14
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.52 of 2025
Shri Samir Ranjan Barman, S/O. Late Sudhir Ranjan Barman, a resident of 38,
Akhaura Road, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura,
PIN-799001.
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The Agartala Municipal Corporation, Body Corporate created under Tripura
Municipal Act, 1994 having its Head Office at City Centre Complex, Paradise
Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-
799001, represented by the Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation.
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation, City Centre
Complex, Paradise Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-
West Tripura, PIN-799001.
3. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, City Centre
Complex, Paradise Chowmohani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-
West Tripura, PIN-799001.
4. Smti. Bhabani Chakraborty @ Bhattacharjee, W/O. Late Dipankar
Chakraborty, 38, Akhaura Road, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-
West Tripura, PIN-799001.
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Date of hearing : 12.02.2026.
Date of judgment : 10.03.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Arijit Bhaumik, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Purusuttam
Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
counsel for the private respondent No.4.
2. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.13.02.2025
of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.67 of 2025.
3. The appellant is a resident of House No.38, Akhaura Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.
4. Adjacent to his residence, on the western side, the homestead of
respondent No.4 was situated.
5. According to the appellant, the respondent No.4 illegally and
unauthorisedly constructed a three storied building without obtaining any
permission in an unscientific manner and without any approval of the Agartala
Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1).
6. He raised objection thereto through letter dt.09.01.2015
addressed to the Executive Officer, Central Zone of respondent No.1, who was
subsequently re-designated as Assistant Commissioner, but no action was
taken thereon.
7. Therefore, he sent a second letter on 06.05.2015 to respondent
No.3 complaining of the deliberate inaction on the part of the Assistant
Commissioner.
8. According to him, the respondent No.3, instead of taking any
action, told the Private Secretary of the appellant on 22.01.2014 to settle the
matter with respondent No.4 amicably and also that respondent No.1 was
trying to bring suitable changes in the Tripura Municipal Act,1994 ( for short
'the Act") and Rules to regularize such type of illegal construction like the one
made by the respondent No.4.
9. It appears that thereafter respondent No.3 issued to respondent
No.4 a notice dt.11.05.2015 asking her to stop the construction work on the
building under Section 135 of the Act and also to produce valid permission, if
any, pointing out that the appellant, who was the eastern side neighbour of the
respondent No.4, had given a complaint regarding the illegal construction
being carried out by her. The notice also mentioned that an inquiry conducted
revealed that the respondent No.4 constructed second floor, extended ground
floor and first floor of the building without permission. The respondent No.4
was directed to appear before the respondent No.3 with all valid documents on
16.05.2015. Copy of the same was also endorsed to the appellant.
10. The appellant then wrote a letter on 14.05.2015 to the respondent
No.3 pointing out that apart from the construction, there was also a septic tank
erected illegally and the notice dt.11.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.3
did not mention all the objections of the appellant.
11. However, the respondent No.4 did not turn up before the
respondent No.3, but filed an application seeking 45 days time on the ground
that certain documents were misplaced.
12. Time was then extended up to 26.05.2015 by respondent no.3 as
a last chance as per an order sheet dt.16.05.2015.
13. But the respondent No.4, according to the appellant, continued to
make illegal construction and so the appellant addressed another letter to
respondent No.3 on 03.06.2015. Appellant also requested the respondent No.3
in that letter to inspect the site, the disputed land, foundation depth of the
building and also the septic tank etc.
The order dt.13.8.2015 of respondent No.3 under section 133 and 135 of the Act:
14. Thereafter, an order dt.13.08.2015 was issued by the respondent
No.3 stating that respondent No.4 failed to show any approved plan for the
second floor of the building and that some deviations were done in the ground
floor and the first floor of the building in violation of the Tripura Building
Rules, 2004. The respondent No.3, therefore, passed the order under Sections
133 and 135 of the Act directing the respondent No.4 to demolish the entire
construction of the second floor SP building as it was constructed without
approved plan, and to further demolish the extended portion of the ground
floor and first floor building beyond the approved plan, and to fix up
necessary soak pit and other pipe in the septic tank to stop the nuisance within
30 days.
15. The respondent No.4 did not comply with the order of demolition
as directed in the order dt.13.08.2015 of respondent No.3.
16. The Appellant contends that he kept on writing letters to
respondent No.3 to take action, but instead of taking any action, the
respondent No.3 addressed a letter on 16.10.2015 to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, Agartala for demarcation of the boundary between the
lands of the appellant and the respondent No.4, which according to the
appellant was wholly unnecessary. Appellant alleges that this was done by the
respondent No.3 to allow the respondent No.4 more time to enjoy and to
complete the unfinished work of her building to the risk and prejudice of the
appellant.
17. Appellant then gave a letter on 13.07.2016 to respondent No.3
and thereupon he received a copy of a letter from the Assistant Engineer,
Planning Division, Agartala Municipal Corporation dt.14.07.2016 addressed
to respondent No.4 to the effect that a joint inspection team was constituted by
the Corporation for necessary inspection of the foundation of the existing
building of the said respondent on 20.07.2016 at 12.30 p.m. The said letter
also mentioned the names of five technical persons. The respondent No.4 was
asked to be present with the original building plan and allied documents to
make arrangements for the inspection. But even thereafter, nothing happened
and so the appellant got issued a legal notice on 08.02.2017 upon respondent
No.2 with a copy marked to respondent No.3, but even then they did not take
any action.
WP(C) No.558 of 2017 and the order therein passed on 30.7.2018:
18. Appellant then filed WP(C) No.558 of 2017 to direct the
respondents No.1 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized building of the
respondent No.4 along with the septic tank forthwith and for other reliefs.
The Appeal of respondent no.4 and order dt.25.5.2018 therein:
19. In the meantime, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal under
Section 133(3) of the Act before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura
challenging the order dt.13.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.3.
20. The Appellate Tribunal on 25.05.2018 set aside the order
dt.13.08.2015 with the observation that there was a complaint and a counter
complaint and so, a proper technical inspection needs be got conducted and a
fresh order be issued in the matter after proper opportunity.
The order dt.30.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.558 of 2017:
21. In view of the said order of the Appellate Authority passed on
25.05.2018, the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.558 of 2017 was disposed of
on 30.07.2018 stating that the Writ Petition had become infructuous, but the
appellant/petitioner can challenge the order dt.25.05.2018, if he so desires. But
the Appellant did not question the same.
22. In spite of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on
25.05.2018 containing directions for a technical inspection, no action was
taken by off, though a representation dt.27.11.2019 was given by the appellant
to the respondent No.3.
23. Appellant then approached the respondent No.2 on 12.10.2020
through a representation complaining of the inaction of the respondent No.3 to
implement the order of the Appellate Authority for technical inspection.
24. The respondent No.3 then issued a notice to the appellant and the
respondent No.4 on 13.11.2020 asking them to appear on 24.11.2020.
25. On that date, the counsel for the appellant appeared before
respondent No.3, but neither respondent No.4 nor her representative appeared.
26. The respondent No.3 then passed an order dt.24.11.2020
directing that a technical inspection team be formed to inspect the entire
building of the appellant and the respondent No.4 and named the members of
the technical team as well.
27. On 11.12.2020, he also issued a memo to a similar effect and
directed the inspection report to be submitted within 30 (thirty) days.
28. But no inspection of the building of respondent No.4 was taken
by the technical team till 16.03.2022 and so, the appellant again made
representations on 02.06.2022, 07.02.2023 and 18.12.2023.
WP(C) No.67 of 2025:
29. He then filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No.67 of 2025 seeking
the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show cause
why a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be
issued directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to complete the
proceedings by way of inspection as per Annexure- 20 within a
definite time frame;
ii. As to why the foundation of the building shall not be
ascertained to find as to whether the building of the respondent
No.4 so constructed on the foundation was permissible, safe and
in accordance with the permission given by the respondent No.1
and if not, pass appropriate order or direction to the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized part of the
building of the said respondent as per the provisions of Tripura
Municipal Act, 1994 and Rules ibid;
iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof
commending upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to demolish the
illegal and unauthorized of the respondent No.4 septic tank
forthwith;
iv. Issue Writ in the light of the prayers made above and
make the Rule absolute;
v. Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
considers appropriate may kindly be passed;
vi. Cost of the petition may be allowed to the petitioner."
30. Before the learned single Judge, the counsel for the Agartala
Municipal Corporation contended that the matter is pending before the official
respondents and appellant cannot seek a Writ of mandamus; and that if
advised, the appellant should approach the civil court for seeking appropriate
relief if any easementary right is affected.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge dt.13.2.2025 in W.P (C0 No.67 of 2025:
31. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the Writ Petition at
the stage of admission of the Writ Petition. He held that the appellant has an
effective alternative remedy before the Civil Court, which can as well
appreciate the evidence and decide whether there was any authorized or
unauthorized construction and so, no direction can be issued to the
respondents to proceed with the inspection team which had already been
constituted. It was also held that the petitioner did not have any locus as his
constitutional rights were not infringed and so he cannot maintain the Writ. It
was observed that the filing of the Writ Petition was an arm twisting method
adopted by the appellant against his neighbour though there was no
infringement of his legal right under the Constitution. Appellant/ petitioner
was also blamed for laches and it was observed that it was a private dispute
and Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
The Writ Appeal:
32. Assailing the same, this Appeal was filed along with an
application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the said Appeal.
33. Notice in the application was issued on 23.09.2025 to the
respondent No.4.
34. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 engaged a counsel and after
hearing both sides, the delay in filing the Writ Appeal was condoned.
35. The matter was heard on 11.02.2026. On that date, this Court
directed the Corporation to inform as to whether technical inspection had been
directed to be done in the order dt. 25.5.2018 and reiterated in the orders dt.
24.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 had been done or not between 2018 and
11.02.2026 of the construction allegedly made by the private respondent and
also the construction made by the petitioner and a direction was given to
produce the technical inspection committee's report, if done and the matter
was adjourned to 12.02.2026. On that day, counsel reported that no such
inspection had been done pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority.
36. Counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is erroneous and that the learned single Judge should
have allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents No. 1 to3 to carry
out the technical inspection and that he ought to have held that the inaction of
the said respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.14 and
300-A of the Constitution of India.
37. Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. They did not dispute that there was inaction on part of
the respondent nos.1 to 3 in doing the technical inspection.
38. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the appellant and the
respondent No.4 as to the legality of the construction made by the respondent
No.4 adjacent to the land of the appellant and the appellant had availed the
statutory remedy under Section 130 by approaching the respondent No.3 and
had secured an order on 13.08.2015 that the illegal construction made by the
respondent No.4 be demolished. The said order is relatable to sub-section (1)
of Section 133 of the Act.
39. Under sub-section (3) of Section 133, an appeal was provided
against such an order to the Municipal Appellate Tribunal constituted under
the Act, and the Appellate Authority was the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Government of Tripura.
40. This appeal was decided on 25.05.2018 setting aside the order
dt.13.08.2015 of the respondent No.3 by directing a proper technical
inspection as there was a complaint and a counter complaint and to pass a
fresh order in the matter. Thus, there was a remand of the matter to the
respondent No.3 to get the technical inspection made.
41. This order has attained finality and the respondent No.4 had not
challenged it in any forum.
42. All that the appellant wants is implementation of the direction
contained in the said order dt.25.5.2018. It is not denied that after the said
order was passed, the petitioner/appellant had made multiple representations
on 27.11.2019, 12.10.2020 and also a legal notice on 18.12.2023; and the
respondent No.3 had even issued notice herein on 13.11.2020 and passed an
order on 24.11.2020 constituting the members of the technical team and again
reiterated the same on 11.12.2020 and 16.03.2022.
43. No valid reason is offered by the counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 3 as to why the said technical inspection has not been done till date
though 8(eight) years have elapsed since the passing of the said order in spite
of the appellant repeatedly requesting for enforcement of the same.
44. It appears that the respondents, who are statutory authorities,
either colluded with respondent no.4 or on account of sheer negligence and
did not obey the direction of the Appellate Authority under the Act to do what
was necessary to address the grievance of the appellant.
45. In several judgments of the Supreme Court such as Consumer
Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu1 , M.I.Builders v. Radhey Shyam
Sahu2 , Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India3 and Friends Colony
Development Committee v. State of Orissa4, the lack of accountability of
Municipal authorities in preventing illegal constructions has been highlighted
and it has been held that officials who have connived with the persons making
illegal constructions cannot be spared.
(2000) 7 SCC 425 para 37
(1999) 6 SCC 464
(2009) 15 SCC 705
(2004) 8 SCC 733 paras 20-26
46. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, erred in
observing that the construction made by the unofficial respondent did not
affect the rights of the appellant because no technical inspection was done
when the matter had come before him to come to such a conclusion. Infact the
respondent no.4 had made similar complaint against the appellant too before
the appellate authority. That was why the technical inspection was felt
necessary by the appellate authority.
47. Also even when the construction was going on, complaints were
made by the appellant to the respondent No.3 and the respondent no.3 had
held in his order dt.13.8.2015 had held that inspite of several opportunities, the
respondent no.4 had not chosen to produce any approved plan for the 2 nd floor
of the building which was constructed. Even before the appellate authority, it
had been pointed out that there were serious deviations by respondent no.4
from the approved plan.
48. When the statute itself has given the remedy in Sections 130 and
133 to the appellant and he had availed the said remedy, it was not open to the
learned Single Judge to say that the appellant had an efficacious remedy
before the Civil Court.
49. Even if certain evidence is required to be appreciated, the
technical knowledge about appreciation of the material, which both parties
would place, was certainly available with the technical inspection team
constituted by the respondent No.3 and it is not as if the officers of the
technical team were in anyway disadvantaged in appreciating the same.
50. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in stating that there
cannot be a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to proceed with the inspection
as directed in the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Appellate Authority under Section
133(3) of the Act.
51. The learned Single Judge is also not right in stating that the
appellant had no locus and that his constitutional rights are not infringed and
that he cannot maintain the Writ. The concept of locus standi in exercise of
Writ Jurisdiction is very liberal and as a neighbor of respondent no.4, he
certainly has locus standi . Also his complaint was entertained and a statutory
order was passed in his favour under sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Act,
which no doubt came to be set aside by the Appellate Authority under sub-
section (3) of Section 133 of the Act with a direction that a technical
inspection be done to ascertain after giving opportunity to both sides.
52. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition
is also barred by laches cannot also be sustained because in this case there are
no laches on the part of the appellant in seeking to take action against the
alleged illegal construction of respondent No.4 as already set out in the earlier
part of this judgment by us.
53. Even if the dispute between the appellant and respondent no.4 is
a civil dispute, since under the Act such disputes are permitted to be resolved
by invoking Sections 133-135 of the Act, and the remedy under the statute has
been availed by the appellant, and the appellant is further seeking to enforce
the order of the Appellate Authority under the Act by approaching this Court,
it cannot be said as held by the learned single Judge that the appellant is trying
to convert a purely civil dispute under the writ jurisdiction and that for a
private dispute, this Court is being misused.
54. The official respondents are duty bound to comply with the order
dt.25.05.2018 of the Appellate Authority under Section 133(3) of the Act and
it is permissible for this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus to them to
implement it.
55. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the judgment
dt.13.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.67 of 2025 is set
aside; the said Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents No.1 to 3 are
forthwith directed to implement the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Municipal
Appellate Tribunal and get conducted technical inspection after issuing notice
to both parties; and then taken further action in accordance of law to redress
the grievance of the appellant.
56. This exercise of inspection and then passing of a fresh order by
the respondent No.3 shall be completed within one month from today without
fail.
57. The respondent No.1 shall also pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (rupees
twenty five thousand) to the appellant within 4(four) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
58. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondents No.1 to 3 in
proceeding with the technical inspection as directed by the Appellate
Authority constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 133 of the Act, the said
Appellate Authority, i.e. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Government of Tripura is directed to cause inquiry into the conduct of the
persons holding the office of respondent No.3 from 25.05.2018 till date,
identify the person/s responsible for such inaction and initiate disciplinary
action against the said officer/s for such inaction if there is evidence of either
collusion with respondent no.4 or sheer negligence on their part.
59. Communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Government of Tripura.
60. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Date: 2026.03.10 13:40:00
