Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3616 (CAL)

JAYANTA RAY v. KOLKATA MUNICIP[AL CORORATION & ORS

MAT/1313/2019 · 2026-02-09

Md Shabbar Rashidi, Rajasekhar Mantha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

09.02.2026 Court No.13 Item Nos.7&8 pk MAT 1312 of 2019 With CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 9410 of 2019) With CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 1560 of 2020) Jibendra Chandra Roy substituted by Jayanta Ray & Ors. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. With MAT 1313 of 2019 With CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 9411 of 2019) Jayanta Ray Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Mr. Suthirtha Das, Mr. Surojit Mukherjee ..for the appellants. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta. ..For the KMC. Mr. Supratim Dhar, Mr. Suddhadev Adak. …for the State. Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Mr. S.T. Mina, Mr. Nilanjan Pal, …. For the Respondent Nos.11(a) to 11(f) in MAT 1312 of 2019 and Respondent Nos.5 to 10 in MAT 1313 of 2019. Ms. Nilima Das. ..for the respondent no. 12 in MAT 1312 of 2019. 1. The Deputy Secretary, Fisheries Department, Govt. of West Bengal has filed an affidavit as directed earlier. The Gazette Notification of the amendment dated 16.06.1994 to the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1993 could not be traced out despite rigorous search. 2 2. It is also stated that records supplier of the Deputy Secretary could not trace file C-1/9R-7/84-III. 3. Since the very existence of the notification of the amendment has been questioned before this Court, this Court cannot hold that the amendments of the 1994 have been given effect to by the State. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the subject land is not covered under the amendment in question. The aforesaid would also put the KMC at ease as the plot in question comprises 34 cottahs which has been completely constructed upon and is having number of residential households. To now disturb the said households on the basis that the land was a water body would be grossly inequitable and unfair. 5. The impugned order of the Commissioner dated 02.02.209 is set aside. 6. With the aforesaid observations, MAT 1312 of 2019 is disposed of. Consequently, connected all pending applications are also disposed of. 7. Since water connection has already been given under orders of this Court, the direction in this regard is made absolute and consequently MAT 1313 of 2019 is also disposed of. Consequently, connected all pending applications are also disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs 3 9. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order and duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)