Calcutta High Court
Jhuma Chatterjee (Nee Bandopadhyay) vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 1 November, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
W.P. No. 539 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
JHUMA CHATTERJEE (NEE BANDOPADHYAY)
Versus
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR
Date : 1st November, 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr. Saikat Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Ashim Ghosal, Advocate
For KMC : Mr. Jugal Chandra Porel, Advocate
Mr. Debangsu Mondal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.7&8 : Mrs. Santi Das, Advocate
Ms. Meenakshi Mandal, Advocate For State : Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Advocate The Court : Parties are represented in the order of their names as printed above in the cause title.
Mr. Ashim Ghosal, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that although the writ petitioner through her men and agents was carrying on essential repair work at the premises in issue, the respondent/KMC (for short `KMC'), without cogent reasons has issued a notice under Section 401 2 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short `the 1980 Act') directing that the construction be stopped forthwith.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a demand for justice dated 12th July, 2017 addressed to the competent Executive Engineer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation by and on behalf of the petitioner is yet to receive a response.
Learned KMC Counsel submits that the reasons for issue of the notice under Section 401 are self-evident from page 32 of the writ petition (supra) itself. Taking this Court to the findings of the Notice Issuing Authority, learned KMC Counsel points out that in the name of essential repair work the petitioner took recourse to fresh construction over and above the existing three storied structure.
The contention of learned KMC Counsel is supported by Mrs. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the private proforma respondent nos.7 and 8. Mrs. Das submits that the flavour of the disputes between the petitioner and the private respondents is essentially civil in nature and, the private respondents are armed with the probate of a Will left behind by the testator/previous living owner of the premises in issue. Therefore, Mrs. Das questions the competence of the writ petitioner to make any construction over the property in issue on the ground of complete absence of locus to do so.
Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner answers that the issue of the Will raised by Mrs. Das is also the subject matter of a proceeding for revocation of the probate.
3
Considering the rival submissions and the materials placed, this Court is satisfied at this stage that the respondent/KMC shall get the premises in issue inspected by a competent officer and submit a report of such inspection. Let such comprehensive report of inspection touching the necessary aspects of the matter, as discussed above, be filed in Court on the next date.
Let the matter next appear under the same heading `Court Application' in the monthly combined list of December, 2017 in usual position.
In the meantime, status quo with regard to the premises in issue shall be maintained by all the parties to this lis till the next hearing.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all formalities.
(SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) SN.
AR(CR)