Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
196/2014 on 10 April, 2014
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
1
3 10.04.2014. M.A.T. 196 of 2014
BD +
C.A.N. 1380 of 2014
Mr. Ranojit Chatterjee,
Mr. Prosenjit De.
... For Appellant
Mr. L. C. Bihani.
... For Municipality
Mr. Rajarshi Halder,
Ms. Sampa Dutta.
... For Respondent No. 6 to 8
Re: Application for Stay C.A.N. 1380/2014.
The inspection report has been filed before this Court on behalf of the South Dum Dum Municipality. The same be kept on record.
Learned advocate representing the appellant submits that the construction was raised by the said appellant strictly according to the building plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities which is however, disputed by the private respondents.
Learned advocate representing the private respondents also submits that his clients have raised construction on the basis of the revised plan granted in the year 2003.
Learned senior counsel representing the municipal authorities submits that both the parties have constructed their own building in deviation to the sanctioned building plan although such deviations are minor in nature and the municipal authorities should not be asked to demolish the unauthorised portion of the buildings of the appellant as well as the private respondents since the same may lead to unnecessary complications and harassment for the occupants.
2Mr. Bihani, learned senior counsel of the municipality also submits that the matter should be left with the municipality and the municipal authorities will take appropriate penal actions in the matter in accordance with law in future.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, we leave the entire matter with the municipal authorities and set aside the order dated 28th September, 2013 passed earlier by the Board of Councillors, South Dum Dum Municipality, and further direct the municipal authorities to take appropriate decision afresh strictly in accordance with law and upon giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day's list.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J,) 3