Judgment on : 4th July, 2014
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : Since common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions,
all these writ petitions ... than one
applicant applies for such lease in respect of a common plot of land was mentioned in Rule 9 thereof. How
much area
aforesaid Sale Deed 0.1 decimals of land having a common
boundary wall with the suit plot was not found. In such view
of the matter ... petitioner-pre-emptor and his
brother, the common boundary of plot no.146 with the suit plot
no.134 has not been determined
disputed transaction a
part of the plot (a) has been transferred, a co-sharer of holding
consisting of plot ... maintain such application
although there is no common boundary line between the plot (a) of the
holding consisting of plot
removal of fences allegedly put
up by the first defendant in a common pathway that
impedes the plaintiffs' access to the main road ... trial Court where the State has confirmed
plot no.678 to be a common pathway. The plaintiffs
demonstrate, by referring to the map submitted
first floor of the premises No. 92, Jhill Road (Bank Plot)
within Plot No. 104 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, having total super built
up area ... parking space
appertaining to the aforesaid plot number, but the opposite party has covered the
common open space for the purpose of enjoying
plot no.791 to the first defendant's
exclusive property at plot no.787 where the line would
pass over the petitioners' plot ... Court has recorded that the
petitioners' exclusive property, plot no.792, has a
common boundary with the joint properties covering
there has been no encroachment
upon the common passage and that the building in the
concerned plot has been constructed in consonance with the
sanctioned
petitioner seeks removal of the pole
installed in the common path adjacent to plot no. 517 as such
installation prevents her egress and ingress from ... premise that a new pole has been installed
in the common pathway. A sketch map has also been annexed to the
writ petition wherefrom
respective portions of
the property from a common vendor. Since the measurement of the plot
purchased by both the parties were small, the parties entered
that the private
respondent has commenced construction of a building
on a common passage despite the subsisting order
passed in a civil suit instituted ... that the private
respondent has encroached on a three-foot common
passage between the plot of the private respondent
and that of the petitioners
