AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed complaining illegal and unauthorized construction upon the land situate and lying in Mouza – Nonadanga, being part of Dag No. 582 and Khatian No. 339 under police station – Amandapur, Ward No. 108, Borough – XII under Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The matter has a chequered history. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition, being WPA 11181 of 2022 claiming to be co-sharer of certain plots of land in Mouza, Nonadanga, police station formerly Tollygunge, presently Anandapur. It was the petitioner’s claim that Fortis Hospital, The Calcutta International School along with certain other private respondents had made construction over the said plot of land without obtaining any sanctioned building plan from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 22nd November, 2022, inter alia, observing as follows: -
“She alleges that the respondent no. 5, Fortis Hospital, respondent no. 6, the Calcutta International School, respondent no. 7, Made Easy, Kolkata and respondent no. 8, Gyananidhi Trust, Eastern Metropolitan Bypass have made constructions over the said plots of land without obtaining any plan sanctioned from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that a suit being TS No.4946 of 2015 is pending consideration before the Civil Court. An earlier writ petition being WP No. 991 of 2006 (Aristray Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) was filed allegedly challenging the acquisition of the land in question.
The issue of acquisition is still pending before this Court in a separate writ petition filed by the present writ petitioner being WPA 11177 of 2022.
Yet another writ petition being WP No. 10568(W) of 2020 was filed seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act in respect of the said property.
Mere wild allegation has been made that the construction has been raised without a valid sanctioned plan. There is no documentary evidence in support of such allegation. The Court, relying upon such wild allegation, ought not to pass order directing the respondents to enquire and decide as to whether or not the constructions made are in accordance with the plan sanctioned.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
In the event, the petitioner is successful in obtaining information from the competent authority that construction has been made without any sanctioned plan or in deviation of the plan sanctioned, then it will be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for relief, if so advised”.
The matter did not stop there. The petitioner filed another writ petition which was registered as WPA 5082 of 2023. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 17th April, 2023.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was registered as MAT 704 of 2023. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties was, inter alia, pleased to dispose of the said appeal on 8th May, 2023 by observing as follows:-
“We see nothing wrong with the order assailed before us. The Right to Information Act itself provides a remedy in the event the query of a person is not answered by the concerned SPIO. In view of availability of such effective alternative statutory remedy, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to issue a mandamus on the Corporation authorities to furnish any information.
However, if the appellant makes a comprehensive representation with sufficient details as regards the property concerned and the nature of the construction, to the Executive Engineer (Building Department), Borough-XII, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, within a fortnight from date, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Executive Engineer in accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties including the appellant and the private respondents herein and/or their authorized representatives. The decision arrived at by the Engineer shall be communicated to the concerned authorities within a week from the date of the decision. Needless to say, if the Executive Engineer, after hearing the parties and considering the material that may be produced before him, comes to the conclusion that there is merit in the appellant’s complaint and unauthorized construction has been made by the private respondents or any of them, he shall take necessary steps for removal of such illegal construction following due process of law.
We have not gone into the merits of the appellant’s complaint. The Executive Engineer shall take an informed decision in accordance with law. The appeal and the connected application are, accordingly, disposed of.
Affidavits not having been called for, the allegations in the injunction petition, shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents”
In terms of the liberty so reserved the petitioner had made a detailed and comprehensive representation before the municipal authorities on 10th May, 2023. The said representation was disposed of by the municipal authorities upon giving opportunity of hearing on 21st July, 2023 and 31st August, 2023 by passing a reasoned order dated 12th September, 2023. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it would transpire that the petitioner had categorically held out that the petitioner is a owner in respect of plot/Dag No. 525/582, Mouza – Nonadanga by virtue of inheritance from her father. The Executive Engineer had, however, considering the report of the KMC observed that no unauthorized construction was found on the plot. There is no challenge to the above order.
Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition would submit that whatever has happened in the past cannot interfere with the rights of the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition which relates to plot no.582, Mouza – Nonadanga. The construction carried out by Fortis Hospital, The Calcutta International School, Gyananidhi Trust and M/s. Artistery Properties Pvt. Ltd. are unauthorized. While responding to the queries of this Court he would submit that the representation dated 10th May, 2023 filed by the petitioner is no longer material and as such he does not propose to disclose the same. According to him, the representation made by the petitioner on 25th May, 2026 appearing at page 59 of the writ petition and the representation dated 8th June, 2026 at page 69 of the writ petition are still pending. The municipal authorities are required to consider and dispose of such representation.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no.12 and Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Municipal authorities. Mr. Mukherjee, submits that the order dated 12th September, 2023 has not been challenged, instead the petitioner to keep the proceedings alive has filed yet another writ petition against the respondents. According to him the claim is frivolous. The writ petition should be dismissed.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner in its zeal to continue with the litigation against the private respondents had filed several writ petitions without any success. Though Mr. Saha, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the instant case is not directed against plot no.525/582 in Mouza Nonadanga, however, I find that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 8th May, 2023 had while considering the case made out by the petitioner was of the view that if the petitioner makes comprehensive representation with sufficient details as regards the property concerned and the nature of the construction, to the Executive Engineer (Building Department), the Executive Engineer shall dispose of the representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied before the authorities in terms of the liberty reserved by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioner, however, has chosen not to disclose the said representation and despite being called upon, has held back such document. I find that the petitioner is trying to reopen the same issue once again now by contenting that the present writ petition is directed against Dag No. 582. In the facts of this case, I am of the view that having exhausted his right by filing a comprehensive representation, the petitioner cannot retain any further right to once again approach this Court. The instant case is, in fact, an abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Insofar as the connected application, being CAN 1 of 2026 filed by the respondent no.12, praying for dismissal of the writ petition is concerned, the same stands disposed of as having become infructuous on the dismissal of the writ petition.
The connected application, being CAN 2 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the BL&LRO to inspect and draw up a sketch map in respect of the land of Dag No. 582 under Khatian No. 339 and the land of Dag No. 525 under Khatian No. 303 and the land of Dag No. 525/570 under Khatian No. 335 situate and lying at Mouza Nonadange being part of J.L. No. 10.
12. From the perusal of the aforesaid application it would transpire that presently an appeal being OA No. 745 of 2026 is pending before the West Bengal Land Reform and Tenancy Tribunal (WBLRTT), as such, since the aforesaid issue is covered by a proceeding pending before the WBLRTT, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in this connected application, and the same also stands dismissed.