Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Provaranjan Chowdhury vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 June, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
29‐06‐2018
S.D.
W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018
Provaranjan Chowdhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 7110 (W) of 2018
Sk. Dil Shad
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya
Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
Mr. Abhisek Addhya
....For the petitioner in
W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018
Mr. Samim Ahmed
Mr. Utsav Dutta
........For the petitioner in
W.P. 7110 (W) of 2018
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya
Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
Mr. Abhisek Addhya
....For the private respondent in
W.P. 7110 (W) of 2018 Mr. Samim Ahmed Mr. Utsav Dutta ........For the Private respondent in W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018 Mr. H.K. Bandyopadhyay Mr. Rama Halder ...For the State in W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018 Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick Mr. Safik Dewan ...For the State in W.P. 7110 (W) of 2018 2 Mr. Ayanabha Raha ..For the Municipality in both writ petitions. Two writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously as they relate to the demolition of a waste water pipe of a particular building.
For the sake of convenience, W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018 is referred to as the first writ petition and W.P. 7110 (W) of 2018 is referred to as the second writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the first writ petitioner submits that, the municipality is of the view that, the waste water pipe has to be removed. He draws the attention of the Court to a photograph, which shows that, the waste water pipe line of the second writ petitioner is on the property belonging to the first writ petitioner. He also submits that, the civil suit was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh proceeding before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the first writ petition is maintainable and the writ petitioner therein is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Learned Advocate for the second writ petitioner submits that, the title is in dispute. Initially, the B.L. &L.R.O. had submitted a report in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. initiated by the first writ petitioner. In such proceeding, 3 the B.L. & L.R.O. had expressed the view that, it is the first writ petitioner, who has encroached upon the land belonging to the second writ petitioner. Subsequently, the first writ petitioner had filed a suit, which he had withdrawn.
The municipality and the State are represented. In view of the rival contentions, there is an element of disputed title involved, which should not be entered into by a Writ Court. Till the title of the private parties with regard to their respective plots are decided by a competent authority, it would be inappropriate to pass mandatory order directing the municipality to demolish the so‐called unauthorized construction. It appears that, the municipality has proceeded on the basis that, the second writ petitioner is guilty of encroachment. Such fact is yet to be established by the first writ petitioner before a competent Court.
In such circumstances, the two writ petitions, being W.P. 5849 (W) of 2018 and W.P. 7119 (W) of 2018 are disposed of by quashing the order of demolition issued by the municipality dated September 23, 2016.
No order as to costs.
4Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 5 6 7 8