Item- 22. sg 20-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2414 of 2026 Raju Manna Versus Pranab Das, Chairman Diamond Harbour Municipality & Ors. Mr. Sandip Das Mr. S. Pramanik …for the petitioner Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh …for the opposite party nos. 13&14 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant in Other Appeal no. 1 of 2025 and is directed against an order being no. 16, dated 12th June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas. By the order impugned, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/petitioner stood rejected. Challenging the order of demolition passed by the authority of Diamond Harbour Municipality, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 218(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. In the said appeal, the petitioner took out an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of an Investigating Commissioner for the purpose of conducting an investigation and to submit a report on the points for investigation as mentioned in the schedule of the said application. The learned Judge rejected the application for local investigation by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the 2 petitioner submits that the order of demolition has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has raised construction on a water body, being LR plot no. 100. He submits that the construction made by the petitioner is not on the water body but on the embankment of the pond in LR Dag No. 100. He submits that without holding local investigation, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the construction made by the petitioner is on a water body or not. He further submits that the petitioner made such construction pursuant to an amount sanctioned under Pradhan Mantry Awas Yojona scheme. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that BL&LRO report, which was considered by the authorities of the Diamond Harbour Municipality, clearly reflects that the construction was made on a water body. He further submits that in the deed by virtue of which the petitioner is claiming title in respect of LR Dag no. 100 it has been specifically stated that the classification of plot is ‘tank’. Mr. Ghosh further submits that the petitioner obtained the sanction plan for making construction on LR Dag Nos. 99 and 104 and not on LR Dag No. 100 as claimed by the petitioner. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the order of demolition, this Court finds that pursuant to a direction passed by the Diamond Harbour Municipality, the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer made field verification and the report was submitted before the authorities of Diamond Harbour 3 Municipality. The said report states that there are pucca houses constructed over the tank and no permission was obtained from the authorities. The learned Judge after going through the purchase deed of the petitioner returned a factual finding that from the purchase deed it transpires that LR plot no. 100 is a pond and the petitioner has purchased 1 satak of land out of 15 satak in the said plot. The learned Judge further recorded that sanction plan depicts that sanction was granted by the Diamond Harbour Municipality for construction of a single storied residential building on LR plot nos. 99 and 104 and not upon LR plot no. 100. The learned judge further recorded that the from the report dated 9th January, 2023, issued by the petitioner addressed to the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Diamond Harbour-I Block, it reveals that the petitioner applied for conversion of one satak of land in LR plot no. 100 and observed that it clearly implies that the nature of the land is pukur/water body for which the petitioner applied for conversion before the concerned authority. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the local investigation is necessary for the purpose of deciding as to whether the construction made on LR plot 100 is a legal one or not or that without local investigation, the dispute involved in the Other Appeal cannot be decided. With the above observation, this civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)