Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar

MAT 1425 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Fighters Lodging Syndicate Private Limited and another

Vs.

State of West Bengal and others

For the appellants : Mr. Tapas Kumar Sinha,

Mr. Joyjit Roy Choudhury

For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel,

Ms. Sonal Sinha, Ld. AGP,

Ms. Shabnam Farooqui,

Mr. Sandipan Das For the respondent

nos. 5 & 6 (KMDA) : Mr. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Satyajit Talukdar,

Mr. Arindam Chatterjee

Heard on : 18.09.2025 Judgment on : 18.09.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against an order by which the

learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellants, challenging a notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1976 Act”), allegedly overstepped his jurisdiction and directed the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh proceeding according to the

direction of the appellate authority, passed in the year 1988, from the stage of Section 10 of the 1976 Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants, in the writ petition, had merely challenged the notice under Section 10(5) and no further. It is further submitted that nor had the respondent authorities sought for any relief to re-initiate proceedings under Section 10 of the 1976 Act. Hence, the direction with which the appellants are aggrieved was passed de hors the pleadings of both parties and the reliefs sought in the writ petition and, as such, ought to be set aside.

3. To provide some context to the argument, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the rejoinder filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the writ application, that is, the State authorities, where an order dated November 16, 1988 has been annexed, whereby an appeal preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants was allowed by the Appellate Authority, directing the Competent Authority to prepare final statement on the basis of the measurements as given therein and issue a fresh notification under Section 10(1) of the 1976 Act and to take subsequent steps accordingly. The said rejoinder is annexed to a supplementary affidavit used by the appellants.

4. It is submitted by the appellants that the respondent authorities underwent a long slumber and never took any steps pursuant to the Appellate Authority’s direction. By way of the impugned direction of the learned Single Judge, a new right has been created in favour of the respondent authorities to re-initiate the proceedings after more than 36 years having elapsed in the meantime.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the KMDA points out that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been wrongly impleaded as Kolkata Improvement Trust, whereas it should be the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that new documents cannot be relied on at the appellate stage, which has been sought to be done by way of the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that, within the four corners of the writ petition, the appellants never pleaded that the State authorities are debarred, by any law or due to inordinate delay, from initiating a proceeding under Section 10 of the 1976 Act. It is submitted that, in any event, there is no statutory limitation period for doing so.

8. It is further contended that pursuant to the Appellate Authority’s order of 1988, a Section 9 notice was issued on May 22, 1989. It is submitted that a notification under Section 10(1) was also issued on September 14, 1989. It is thus contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality but rather balances equities.

9. In support of such proposition, learned counsel for the