02.09.2026 sl.23 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 20105 of 2026 Tarun Maity Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta Ms. Juthika Barman …for the petitioner Mr. Sukanta Ghosh Mr. Jaydipta Mandal …for the State Ms. Ruchira Manna Mr. Akilesh Tripathi …for respondent no. 4 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent municipality to rescind, cancelled and/or withdraw the sanction plan granted in favour of the private respondent on 25.6.2026 within one month.” 2. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and the private respondent jointly purchased a piece of land with a dilapidated building standing thereon. Subsequently, the said property was partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties by executing a deed of partition, which was duly registered. He submits that it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall have the liberty to construct a building upon his portion, whereas the private respondent shall have similar liberty to make construction on the portion allotted 2 to him. However, it was mutually agreed that the dilapidated building would be demolished before undertaking any construction by either of the parties. He submits that, suddenly, the private respondent approached the municipality for sanction of the building plan to make construction on the first floor of the said dilapidated building. He submits that such sanction has been granted in contravention of the applicable building rules, particularly in violation of Rule 4 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007, and that no approval of the building site was obtained from the municipality before granting such sanction. He submits that the construction undertaken by the private respondent is absolutely illegal and that the plan was also sanctioned illegally by certain officials of the municipality. He submits that the municipality be directed to cancel the sanctioned plan. 3. Ms. Manna, learned Advocate for the private respondent, vehemently opposes the contention raised by the petitioner. She submits that the building plan was sanctioned as far back as in 2018, and the petitioner made construction on a certain portion of his building. However, since the time limit fixed in the said sanctioned plan had expired, the private respondent made a prayer for extension of time to complete the construction work. She submits that, being so approached, the municipality extended the time to enable the private respondent to complete the construction. She submits that the petitioner, without any 3 reason and out of personal grudge, is trying to stall the construction. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State, submits that if the matter is relegated to the concerned municipality to consider the petitioner’s representation, he would have no objection. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the respective stands of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Administrator, Contai Municipality (respondent no. 3 herein), to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.07.2026, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondent. If, upon such consideration, respondent no. 3 finds substance in the grievance raised by the petitioner in the said representation, he shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Until the petitioner’s representation is considered and disposed of by respondent no. 3, no further construction shall be carried out in respect of the property in question. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)