Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 29304 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2026

With

WPA 778 of 2026

Sri Ranjit Kumar Ghosh

Versus

Howrah Municipal Corporation & ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, adv.

Mr. Sumitava Chgakraborty, adv.

Ms. Bratati Pramanick, adv.

For the Municipality : Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, adv.

Mr. Ankit Sureka, adv.

For the respondent no.2 : Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), adv.

Heard on : 14.01.2026. Judgment on : 14.01.2026

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed in effect seeking an order

so as to restrain the municipal corporation from raising any objection and/or insist for any sanction plan for construction of a boundary wall at 34 Dharmatala Lane, P.O.& P.S.- Shibpur, Howrah, 711102 in ward No. 34 Borough-V. The writ petition is,

however, opposed by an intervener, namely, Badri Narayan Yadav and an application for addition of party being CAN 1 of 2026 has been filed. It is contended by the intervener that the intervener is a thika tenant in respect of premises No. 34 and 34/1 Dharmatala Lane, Howrah and in support thereof, TR forms have been disclosed. The intervener would further contend that the intervener is at present carrying on a parking business under the name and style of M/s Joy Ma Kali parking and the HMC has authorized the aforesaid business by issuing a certificate of enlistment for the year 2025-2026. The relevant certificate of enlistment has also been disclosed.

2. Ms. Dey (Dhabal) learned advocate for the intervener also submits that the intervener has also filed a title suit before the Court of 2nd Civil Judge(Junior Division) at Howrah being title suit No. 1486 of 2025 against the co-sharers of the aforesaid property. The suit is for permanent injunction. According to her, there is subsisting order of injunction restraining the defendants from making any unauthorized construction over the schedule property and/or creating any third party interest in the property. According to Ms. Dey (Dhabal), the interim order passed on 26th September, 2025 has later been extended.

3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, on the other hand, at the very outset has drawn the attention of this Court to the schedule “A” of the plaint relied on by the intervener and would contend that the schedule “A” of the plaint does not involve the property in question. He submits that the intervener has also not been able to establish that the intervener is a thika tenant at least no order under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Acquisition and Regulation Act, 2001 has been disclosed. Since the order of injunction does not stand in the way of the petitioner from constructing boundary wall, this Court should pass appropriate relief to the petitioner so that the municipal authorities do not interfere in the construction of the boundary wall.

4. Mr. Banerjee learned advocate representing the municipality on the other hand has submitted that the municipality never insists for any permission or sanction plan for construction of any boundary wall up to the height of 2.87 meters. According to him, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to construct a boundary wall, the petitioner can do so for which no specific permission is necessary.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the intervener may have some interest in the property, as it is claimed that a business is run from the property is question which is also authorized by the HMC. Accordingly, the application filed by the intervener for addition of party is allowed. The intervener is added as an added respondent in the present cause. The department is directed to carry out this order. The application being CAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of.

6. Ms. Dhabal, learned advocate representing the intervener has accepted service of the writ petition. Though she has submitted that there i