Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Golok Behari Das & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 January, 2019
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
100.
07.01.2019.
Ct. No. 26.
F.B.
W.P. 26930 (W) of 2017
Sri Golok Behari Das & Anr.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury,
..... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Adhikari,
Mr. Somraj Dhar
..... For the State.
Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Suman Basu
..... For the Respondent
No. 3.
Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Mr. Pritam Choudhury, Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Mr. Abhisek Addhya ..... For the Respondent No. 8.
Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
The short issue raised in this writ petition by Mr. Chowdhury, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, relates to the construction being carried out by the private respondent no. 8 in respect of the plots/premises in issue without obtaining any approval of the Competent Authority extending the validity period of the sanctioned plan.
Mr. Chowdhury submits that notwithstanding the pendency of civil proceedings by and between the parties upto the stage of 2 second appeal now pending before the Hon'ble Court, only on the limited point whether any construction could be carried out upward by the private respondent no. 8 without obtaining an extension of the sanctioned plan is a matter that can be considered by the Writ Court.
The position with regard to lack of extension to the sanctioned plan, which has already expired, is not controverted by Mr. Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Hooghly Zilla Parishad (HZP), Mr. Adhikari, Learned Counsel, appearing for the State and Mr. Chaturvedi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Private respondent no. 8. However, Mr. Chaturvedi points out that the onus of applying for the extension lies with the writ petitioner/landholder.
Mr. Chaturvedi submits and, such also appears from the pleadings in the writ petition, that the original agreement on which the construction is sought to be raised by the private respondent no. 8 has been and, still is the subject matter of civil proceedings by and between the parties. The writ petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit.
The position, again canvassed by Mr. Chaturvedi, is not disputed from the record that up to the stage of the First Appellate Court both the suit and the appeal stood dismissed against the petitioner/as plaintiff/and as appellant. Therefore, the petitioner is now before the Hon'ble Court by way of a Second Appeal.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, although the submission of Mr. Chowdhury may be immediately attractive on the limited point as sought to be raised by him connected to the invalidity of the sanctioned plan, on a larger consideration of the issues this Court is of the clear view that the 3 suit and the appeal having been played out by the parties to the full, it was always open to Mr. Chowdhury's client to have taken the points and adopted suitable proceedings before the civil court/forum in seisin of the foundational dispute.
This Court has a conscious responsibility to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This Court must also observe that any construction sought to be raised in the property in issue must find its place on the authority of the agreement between the principal parties, viz. the petitioner and the private respondent no. 8, which is sub-judice in the civil proceedings.
In the backdrop of the above discussion, this writ petition is not detained.
W.P. 26930 (W) of 2017 stands accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the parties to ventilate their grievances, as advised, before the appropriate Civil Court/Forum.
Since affidavits are not invited, allegations made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)