Local authorities must comply with statutory responsibilities to address unauthorized constructions, following due process to uphold legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent/Municipality to demolish the structures put up in the suit premises and to remove the same and restore the premises in its original position.

2. The petitioner further prays for restoration of possession of the property of the petitioners.

3. The petitioner’s case is that it has absolute right, title, interest in the disputed premises.

4. It is further stated that on 10.7.2006 the petitioners suddenly noticed that there was certain encroachment on the said land by unidentified persons and a wall bamboo fencing was being illegally constructed therein all around the property. Infact the durwans of the petitioners who were there were driven out of the property.

5. Immediately after the said fact came to the notice of the petitioners, the petitioners by a letter dated 10.7.2006 addressed to The Inspector in charge, Uttarpara Police Station, District Hooghly informed the said fact with a request to take necessary action.

6. The police authorities failed, neglected and refused to take any action to stop the said unauthorized encroachment and as a result, the petitioners had to run from pillar to post and approach both the Officer in Charge as well as the Superintendent of Police being the respondents herein.

7. In course of such approach it transpired that the said land was being encroached upon by and or at the instance of the Konnagar Municipality, and the Chairman thereof being the respondent no. 2 herein was taking active interest in such encroachment and or illegal occupation of the said property.

8. A Special Officer was appointed in the present case and a report has been placed before this Court where the relevant extract is as follows:-

“…………In presence of the said Learned Advocates and the authorized representative of petitioner company and Municipality, I have inspected the property and during inspection it is found that at Western side of the property, 11(eleven) Kaccha structures are there occupied by 1. Nirupa Mallick, 2. Manoj Dom. 3. Md. Dilbar. 4. Boto Mondal. 5. Robi Das. 6. Karan Mallick. 7. Laxmi Bag. 8. Paran Mondal. 9 Samir Halder, 10. Ankur Bag and 11. Abhijit Mondal. As told by the occupants, the following persons having separate privy:

1. Nirupa Mallick,

2. Samir Halder,

3. Manoj Dom,

4. Paran Mondal

But all the occupants having separate electric connection.

At the corner of South-West portion of the property, there is a two storied structure which was locked at the time of inspection and from the board affixed therewith, it appeared that it belongs to Konnagar Arabindo Bhyam Samity. The Learned Advocate for the municipality as well Learned Advocate for the petitioner company and their representative confirmed that the structure is within the boundary of the company’s property.

Save and accept as above, no other encroachment and/or fittings and fixtures could be found at the property during inspection.”

9. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of making several complaints before the Municipality, there has been severe inaction on the part of the Municipality.

10. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kar appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, wherein the Court held:-

“19. ………….

“IX. DIRECTIONS

90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by