Item No.10 01.07.2026 Court. No. 12 GB FMA 722 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 Rajat Bagchi VS The Chairman, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality & Ors. Mr. S.A. Ahmed … for the Appellant. Mr. Mir Anuruzzaman, … for the Municipality. Mr. Pradyat Saha, Mrs. Shreyosi Chakraborty … for the Private Respondents. In Re: CAN 2 of 2025 1. This is an application for restoration of FMA 722 of 2025, which was dismissed for default on June 16, 2026, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant. 2. Upon perusal of the averments stated in paragraph 2 of the said application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the Court when the appeal was called and thereafter dismissed. 3. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. 4. The appeal is restored to its original file and number. In Re: FMA 722 of 2025 1. The report of the municipality has been served upon the person responsible for the unauthorized construction. 2 2. According to the sub-Assistnt Engineer, Rajpur-Sonarpur municipality, before the sanction was granted, the ground floor and part of the first floor was existing. 3. Thus, we prima facie, find that there is a deviation from the law, inasmuch as, post facto sanction had been granted by the municipality. The report further records that, upon the building plan being considered and compared with the existing construction, several deviations were detected. The report is quoted below:- “1. As per sanctioned building plan vide No. 232/RB/28(27)/8 dated 02.05.2001, ground floor and part of the first floor were already existing before sanctioning of the building plan. Part of the ground & first floors were proposed for sanctioning. 2. The property which is shown in the mentioned building plan is not entirely under possession of Mr. Buddhadev Guha as the paternal property was mutually partitioned between Mr. Guha and his elder brother. 3. In comparison with the sanctioned building plan, following is the detail of the part of building which is now under possession of Mr. Buddhadev Guha. i. As per sanction plan, frontage of the land was 11.277m i.e. 37-O". But length of the existing boundary wall is 11.204m i.e. 36'-9". From the physical condition, it is found that the eastern side edge of the front boundary wall is crossed the building line (which is shown as property line in sanction plan) by 300mm. ii. As per sanction plan, there was no open space at the east side. But physically M/L 300 mm open space has been found from the eastern side edge of the existing front boundary wall to the building. A temporary fencing is found which is located at a distance 300mm to 450 mm away from the edge of the existing front boundary wall encroaching the adjacent land. iii. Front open space as per sanction plan has been shown nil due to existing construction. iv. Open space dimension was shown as 2400mm in the north western corner of the building in sanction plan which is now found as 2100mm. 3 v. At west side 2nos tin shade toilets measuring 1500mmX1150mm & 1700mmX1150mm has been found in open space which is not shown in sanctioned plan. vi. There is no rear side open space as the property was mutually partitioned through the existing building. 4. Except the temporary toilet at western side, the outer dimensions of the building are more or less same as per sanctioned building plan. Sd/- SANJOY SENGUPTA Sub-Asst. Engineer Mahamayatala Local Office Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality” 4. Under such circumstance, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which the municipality must act and proceed in accordance with law. The inspection report is already with the parties. Both the parties will file their respective responses to the said report. Thereafter, the municipality shall initiate the proceedings, in terms of Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act and reach the same to its logical conclusion. If unauthorized constructions are detected, the same shall be demolished in accordance with law and the specific finding as to whether the municipality could grant post-facto sanction, should also be arrived at by the competent authority. A hearing shall Sanction & Physical Comparison of Open Spaces Open Space Front side East side West side Rear side As per Sanction Physical As per Sanction Physical As per Sanction Physical As per Sanction Physical Nil Nil Nil 300mm 2050mm 600mm (at toilet position) 5610mm Nil (Due to Portioning) 4 be given to all the parties. The reports filed earlier shall not be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that, in the process of adjudication of this appeal we had found that the earlier reports of the Assistant Engineer were inconsistent. We had directed that fresh inspection should be held and we are directing the municipality to act on the basis of the said report. 5. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)