Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saibal Kumar Ghosh vs Ranaghat Municipality & Ors on 15 January, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
39.
15‐01‐2019
S.D.
W.P. 25852 (W) of 2018
Saibal Kumar Ghosh
Vs.
Ranaghat Municipality & Ors.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty
Mr. Avirup Mondal
Mr. Anand Jha
....For the petitioner.
Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee
Sk. Faridullah
...For the Ranaghat Municipality.
Mr. D.N. Chatterjee
...For the Respondent No. 7.
Report as called for by the order dated December 21, 2018 filed in Court be taken on record.
Learned Advocate for the Municipality makes over a copy of the report to the learned Advocate for the private parties in Court.
The report states that, there are no unauthorized constructions.
2Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, there is a construction on R.S. Plot No. 1537 corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 4921. According to him, such plot is vested with the State. Therefore, the municipality is incorrect in contending that, there are no unauthorized constructions.
Learned Advocate for the municipality submits that, in a previous litigation alleging unauthorized construction, the Court did not find any unauthorized construction at the locale. Moreover, the private parties are before the Land and Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal.
In the facts of the present case, in my view, interest of justice would be sub‐served by requiring the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to submit a report as to whether the R.S. Plot No. 1537 corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 4921 stands vested with the State or not and whether there exists any construction on such plots or not.
List the Writ Petition on February 12, 2019 under the same heading when the report as called for be filed. 3
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4 5 6 7