Form No.J(2)

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

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 3064 of 2025 Aniruddha Mukherjee Versus Chairman, Kamarhati Municipality & ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Puranjan Pal Mr. Samir Kr. Ghosh For the Municipality : Mr. Sankha Subhra Ray For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh Mr. Arabinda Pathak Ms. Suparna Paul Ms. Shilpi Ghosh For the State : Ms. Sipra Mazumdar Ms. Somashree Dey Heard on : 02.01.2026. Judgment on : 02.01.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, complaining illegal construction done by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the purported building plan sanctioned by the Municipal authorities forming annexure P-3 of the present writ petition.

2. In order to decide on the issues involved in the writ petition, it is necessary to note down the facts leading to the instant case. The petitioner claims to have acquired interest in respect of a property which originally forms part of a property which was held by the predecessor in title of both the petitioner as also the private respondent No. 2 being Debi Prasad Mukherjee. The petitioner claims to have acquired interest in a portion thereof vide a registered deed dated 20th April, 2022 which included acquisition of 1/3 share of land measuring an area of 490 sq.ft. together with pakka structure measuring 209 sq.ft. and 281 sq.ft. of vacant land on the ground floor in total 490 sq.ft. out of 2 khatas 30 sq.ft. forming premises No. 54/2 Nil Kantha Chatterjee Street North 24 parganas corresponding to L.R. Dag No. 347/348, Khatian No. 1038 of Mouza-Belghoria, P.S. Belghoria, North 24 Parganas.

3. On the eastern side of the petitioner’s premises lies the property of the respondent No. 2. It would also transpire from the records that the respondent No. 2 had acquired interest in the property being holding No. 1030/2 mouza- Belghoria under ward No. 22 of Kamarhati Municipality. At the time when the property was purchased by the respondent No. 2 on 27th March, 2017, the property was already constructed upon by the petitioner’s immediate vendor namely, Probandho Kumar Mukherjee up to the first floor level. The said premises in question forms part of LR Dag No. 348. It appears that when the respondent No. 2 attempted to raise a construction on the basis of a sanctioned building permit over the 1^st floor of the aforesaid building, the petitioner raised objection and claimed that the construction that is coming up is illegal and de hors the West Bengal Municipal Building Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”).

4. Mr. Ali, learned senior advocate appears for the petitioner. He has taken this Court through the report filed by the municipality in order to contend that the municipal authorities had acknowledged the fact that the adequate open space throughout the length and breadth of the building owned by the respondent no.2 which is adjoining the petitioner’s premises had not been maintained and only a 2 ft. open space had been maintained. According to him, though the municipal authorities have claimed that the original construction had come up on the basis of no objection issued by the petitioner’s vendor, however, the no objection could not have overridden the statutory provisions.

5. Mr. Ali, has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 50 of the said Rules to, inter alia, contend that the mandatory open space between the two buildings in this case which is 4 ft. has not been maintained. The building standing on the part and portion of premises no. 54/A Nilkanta Chatterjee Street belonging to the respondent no. 2 has been constructed de hors the provisions of the said rules. Although, the petitioner had filed a civil suit, such suit according to Mr. Ali is in relation to the personal civil rights of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. The writ petition