14.07.2026 Sl. No. 24 Ct No. 3 tkm WPA 5135 of 2025 Asim Narayan Bose & Anr. Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Bhattacharya … for the petitioners Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Ms. Washim Akthir Dafader …for respondent nos. 11-15 Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh. Mr. Fazlul Haque …for the KMC Mr. Sukanta Ghosh. Mr. Arghya Chatterjee …for the State 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the municipal authorities to dispose of the objection dated 28th October, 2024 filed by the petitioners in relation to the sanctioned building permit issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 11 to 15 in respect of premises No. 9 Bhairav Mukherjee lane pertaining to building sanction permit No. 2023010059 dated 12th August, 2023. The petitioner No. 1 is the president of Belgachia Friends’ Union while the petitioner No. 2 is the secretary of Belgachia Friends’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the Club). The petitioners claim that the land comprising of 3 kathas 14 chittaks 30 sq. ft. 2 situate at 9, Bhairav Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata 700004 is owned and possessed by the respondent nos. 11 to 15. 2. According to the petitioners, one Dipendra Nath Bose, permanent resident of Bhairab Mukherjee Lane, along with others had filed a Title Suit being TS No. 67 of 2016 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court at Sealdah inter alia, praying for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs including the proforma defendants/club are the absolute owners of suit property being 2½ cottah of land lying and situate on the northern side of the one storied building at premises no. 9, Bhairab Mukherjee Lane. 3. The petitioners also claim that later, a Title Suit has been filed by the club which has been registered as TS No. 160 of 2019 and the same is pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 2nd Court, Sealdah. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have inter alia, sought for a declaration that the legal heirs of Satya Charan Biswas never acquired any right over the suit property by way of inheritance upon the death of Satya Charan Biswas, and for a further declaration that purported will alleged to had been executed on 5th day of June 1971 as recited in the impugned deeds dated 24th February, 1978 by Bhubaneswari Biswas, never created any right either upon the executor or upon the 3 beneficiary to the will nor accrued in favour of the legatee and for a further declaration that the purported probate obtained from the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Probate Case no. 169 on 17th day of December, 1976 did not accrue any sorts of right in favour of the executor or any type of right in favour of the beneficiary. It must be noted that the club has prayed for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff/club has acquired right and good title by way of adverse possession for long, continuous and uninterrupted physical possession of the suit property. 4. The petitioners’ case further proceeds on the premise that the petitioners subsequently, on the basis of an RTI application having come to learn that the sanctioned building permit having been issued by the municipal authorities on 12th August 2023 in favour of respondent nos. 11 to 15, had filed a title suit being TS no. 101 of 2024 before the Court of learned Civil Judge 2nd Court at Sealdah inter alia, praying for declaration and permanent injunction as also for consequential reliefs. The petitioners also filed an injunction application by holding out that the defendants had somehow managed to procure the sanctioned building plan from Kolkata Municipal Corporation in collusion with the developers to overlook the petitioners’ 4 legitimate right and that the defendants are trying to raise illegal construction over the suit properly. 5. The said application seeking ad interim injunction was however, rejected by an order dated 6th August 2024 by observing that the plaintiffs do not have a strong prima facie case and that the defendants are raising construction with the help of sanctioned building plan issued by the KMC. Incidentally, on the Misc Appeal being filed challenging such order, by an order dated 3rd September 2024 an order of status quo was directed to be maintained. 6. Being aggrieved, the owners had approached this court in civil revision being CO 3458 of 2024. Such petition came to be disposed of by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court by inter alia, observing as follows: “Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned Senior advocate for the opposite party no.1 submits that the scope of challenge to the impugned plan since is very narrow, his client intends to challenge the legality and validity of the said Plan in a writ proceeding and to facilitate it, does not want to proceed with the suit. In view of such stand of the plaintiff, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 101 of 2024 along with all pending applications filed by the plaintiff are dismissed as not pressed, other applications, if there be any, are also dismissed as infructuous; in consequence, the Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 2024 also stands dismissed as infructuous. Needless to say, this order will not prevent the plaintiff to take appropriate steps to challenge the impugned building plan in accordance with law. C.O. 3458 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. 5 Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.” 7. In the light of above, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners would submit that since, this court had already granted leave to the petitioners to take appropriate steps, for challenging the impugned building plan and the petitioners by virtue of such liberty reserved in their favour had approached the municipal authorities by objection in writing dated 28th October 2024, the municipal authorities ought to have decided the same. According to him, the municipal authorities are sitting tight over the matter. 8. The matter has come up for consideration upon exchange of affidavit. Let the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 11 to 15 and the reply thereto by the petitioners be taken on record. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties I find that the petitioners are yet to establish their right before a competent civil court. Though the petitioners claim to be in adverse possession of the property in question no order of injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioners. The status quo order passed by the appellate court was also set aside. In the factual foundation noted hereinabove, when the petitioners are yet to establish 6 their case and when the learned trial court has not even found a prima facie case, I am of the view having regard to the sanctioned building plan already been issued by the municipal authorities, directing the petitioners’ representation to be considered by the municipal authorities would tantamount to authorizing the municipal authorities to usurp the power of the civil court. As such at this stage no inference is called for. The right of the petitioners’ to renew their prayer before the municipal authorities would be dependent upon the outcome of the title suit. 10. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)