IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 12414 of 2023 Aswini Kumar Maity -Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Malayasree Maity For the State : Mr. Ranjit Rajak For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Gopal Chandra Das Ms. Ananya Das For the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 : Mr. Rudranil De Judgment on : 23.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus praying for directions to the respondent authorities to consider the representation/objections dated 09.03.2023 and 11.05.2023 against the unauthorized construction by the private respondents on the disputed plot. The petitioner also prayed the Court to command respondents no 3 and 4 to pursue the stop work notice dated 27.03.2023, directing steps to demolish the unauthorized construction by cancelling the sanctioned plan. Additionally, the petitioner requested to issue an ad-interim stay of order on further constructions as per the stop work notice dated 27.02.2023, until the cancellation proceedings were disposed of and further cancelation proceedings were initiated.

2. The petitioner precisely stated to have obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for the execution of a sale deed through institution of TS. No 86 of 1990 before the 2nd Court of Munsif, by entering into an agreement with the original owner Pares Chandra Das, heir of Late Kanailal Das, for the purchase of a property measuring 2.2 decimals in RS No. 50 (LR Plot No. 50), RS Khatian No. 686 (LR Khatian No. 153), Mouza Parbatipur, Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur. During the pendency of the suit, the original owner sold the aforementioned land, to the purchasers, Amarnath Dey and Monika Dey who filed T.S. No. 91 of on 2007 (T.S.-20 of 1995), which was dismissed on contest. An appeal, which was preferred against the Judgment and Decree being T.A. 28 of 2015 was also dismissed for default. Consequently, the private respondents and their vendors had no title over the plot. On 06.02.2023, the private respondents initiated construction on the plot and the petitioner raised objections against the same at the municipality. The petitioner had forwarded representations on 15.02.2023 and 24.02.2023, and consequently the municipality issued a stop work notice on 27.02.2023. Despite the stop work notice, the private respondents continued the aforesaid construction.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner represented on 06.03.2023, 09.03.2023, and

12.03.2023, requesting the cancellation of the construction plan and demolition of the construction.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner argued that despite several representations submitted against the private respondent concerning their illegal construction, the municipality failed to take any action. Initially, the Chairman issued a stop work notice and called for a hearing but no such hearing was conducted and the stop work notice was not enforced. The petitioner further claimed that the private respondent fraudulently obtained a construction plan from the municipality by concealing a civil court decree that denied their title to the property. It was further claimed that the municipal authorities had acted illegally and with malafide intention by not initiating proceedings under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. It was further argued that the petitioner held a superior title to the property as the private respondent had suppressed the fact that the title suit and appeal had been dismissed while applying for the approval of the building plan. The suppression of these material facts rendered the sanctioning of the building plan invalid.

5. The Learned Advocates representing the Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 argued that the municipality issued a notice to the parties on 27.02.2023 for a hearing directing the parties to appear before the Chairman along with the relevant documents. During the time of the hearing, it w