02.04.2025 Sl. No.39 Ct.3/ tkm W.P.A. 9743 of 2024 [Md. Mukhtar Khan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. Sourav Mukherjee Mr. Saikat Mukherjee Ms. Anupama Biswas … … for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Atis Kr. Biswas … … for KMC Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee … … for the State Mr. Arindam Banerjee Mr. Shareq Siddique Ms. S Alam … … for respondent nos. 10 to 13 Mr. Subit Majumdar … … Special officer 1. The Special Officer has filed his report. The counsel for the petitioner is asked whether he wishes to file his exception to the Special Officer’s report. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file the same 2. Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition alleging unauthorized illegal construction being raised in premises no. 7,7A,7B,7C,7E,7F, Tiljala Place, PS Karaya Kolkata 700017. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that illegal construction is being carried out by the private respondent nos. 10 to 13. 4. This court vide order dated 25.2.2025 had recorded the submission of the counsel for the 2 KMC wherein it is stated that relevant building is being constructed in accordance with plan sanctioned by the corporation. 5. It is further submitted that the plan was sanctioned with the condition that respondent nos. 10 to 13 shall create a waterbody of an area measuring 1 cottah 7 chittak (1035 sft) in the relevant premises. 6. Vide order dated 25.2.2025 a co-ordinate Bench of this court had appointed Mr. Subit Majumdar as special officer and directed him to go and inspect the property and file report indicating whether the waterbody as stipulated in the sanction plan is being constructed and maintained as per undertaking given by the private respondents to the corporation at the time of sanctioning of the building plan. 7. A report has been filed by the special officer, in which he indicated that he had conducted an inspection along with an officer from the KMC and concluded that respondent nos. 10 to 13 had made the necessary provision and created a waterbody measuring approximately 1101 square feet within the boundary of the relevant premises, as directed by the KMC at the time of sanctioning the building plan. He further 3 observed that the said waterbody is constructed and maintained in accordance with the law 8. The petitioner's contention that he is the owner of 17 cottah and that it should be maintained as a waterbody is irrelevant, as the sanctioned plan only disputes 1 cottah 7 chittack. 9. In view of the same nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same is disposed of in view of the fact that respondent nos. 10 to 13 are constructing the property as per sanctioned building plan and the waterbody is being maintained as mentioned in the sanction plan as per report of the special officer. (Gaurang Kanth, J.)