SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 524

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Dipes Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Anil Sureka – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tanmoy Sett, Advocate, Mr. Pran Gopal Das, Advocate
For the Writ Petitioner/Respondent In FMA 618 of 2025 and MAT 771 of 2025 and for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 in APO 100 of 2024:Mr. Uday Narayan Betal, Advocate, Mr. Manas Das, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Advocate Mr. Mriganka Patra, Advocate
For the KMC in FMA 618 of 2025 and MAT 771 of 2025 :Mr. Achintya Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Fazlul Haque, Advocate, Mrs. Ina Bhattacharyya, Advocate
For the KMC in APO 100 of 2024 :Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas, Advocate
For the State in FMA 618 of 2025 and MAT 771 of 2025 :Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP, Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata, Advocate
For the State in APO 100 of 2024 :Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Advocate

Judgment :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they relate to the same immovable property, namely, Premises No.6A, Jorabagan Street, Kolkata-700006. All the three appeals are specially assigned to this Bench.

2. Of the three appeals, one is in the Original Side. In the Original Side, APO 100 of 2024 is at the behest of the owner of the premises concerned and directed against an order dated May 7, 2024 passed in WPO 393 of 2024. By the impugned order dated May 7, 2024, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

3. FMA 618 of 2025 is at the behest of the owner of the property and directed against orders dated March 10, 2025 and March 11, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. MAT 771 of 2025 is again at the behest of the owner and directed against an order dated May 14, 2025 passed in WPA 5700 of 2025. By the three impugned orders involved in these two appeals learned Single Judge granted interim protection to the private respondent in respect of a subsisting order of demolition passed under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, in 2015, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top