Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dilip Hazra & Ors vs Sk. Salim & Ors on 24 September, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
Item No.28 24.09.2025
Court. No.16 GB/CP WPCRC 97 of 2025 In WPA 11689 of 2021 Dilip Hazra & Ors.
VS Sk. Salim & Ors.
Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, Mrs. Mounita Ghosh ... for the Applicants.
Mr. Tapas Maity ... for the Alleged Contemnors.
Affidavit-of-compliance filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor no.2 is taken on record.
It appears that a reasoned order has been passed. It is specifically contended by the alleged contemnors that, the land on which the constructions have been made, is recorded in the name of Sahid Matangini Panchayat Samiti and on this land Mecheda -2 mini market is situated.
According to the petitioners, the land belongs to the petitioners and the same had been acquired by the National Highway Authority of India for a public purpose. Some portion of the land remains unutilized. The petitioners prayed for return of the land.
The reasoned order depicts that on the unused land, Mecheda - 2 mini market was established and the control and management of the market was given to Sahid Matangini Panchayat Samiti, for rehabilitation of small business men.
The petitioners submit that the unutilized land had been returned to the LA Collector by a notification. However, upon hearing the parties, the panchayat authority passed the 2 order, indicating that the shops were more or less temporary in nature and were controlled by the Sahid Matangini Panchayat Samiti. The samiti is collecting the fees from the shop owners. Whether the shops are illegal or not, should be decided by the samiti.
I find that the petitioners had moved an application alleging unauthorized constructions. A coordinate Bench had directed the authorities to dispose of the representation. When the representation was not disposed of, a second writ petition was filed. This Court had directed disposal of the representation and ascertainment as to whether any unauthorized construction had taken place. The procedure to be followed had also been prescribed. However, as the authority had passed an order indicating that the samiti would be the appropriate authority to decide the issue of unauthorized occupation of the stalls on the land in question, of which the petitioners claim to be the owners, the application is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps by filing a comprehensive writ petition by challenging the order passed and for further orders.
Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed of. Contempt proceedings are dropped.
Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)