15.09.2026 Sl. No. 7 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 4745 of 2026 KAIL Limited & Anr. Vs. Senior Special Secretary & Appellate Authority, Urban Development Department (Urban Land Ceiling Branch) & Ors. Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Mr. Sounak Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Soumyadeb Chattejee, …for the petitioners. Mr. Sounak Ghosh Mr. Paramita Mondal, …for the State. 1. The writ petitioner and the respondent State are represented by their respective learned advocates. 2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit indicating that the name of the writ petitioner no. 1 company has now been changed to “KAIl Limited”. 3. He seeks to incorporate the new name of the writ petitioner no.1 company by making insertion in the Cause Title of the instant writ petition. 4. The supplementary affidavit as filed is taken on record. 5. The liberty as prayed for is granted to the learned advocate-on-record for the writ petitioner to make necessary insertion in the Cause Title of the instant 2 writ petition in respect of writ petitioner no.1 in Court positively in course of this day. 6. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 18.12.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 1 authority in an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“the said Act in short”) whereby and whereunder the said respondent No.1 authority being the appellate authority under Section 33 of the said Act declined to condone the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 33(1) of the said Act by the present writ petitioner. 7. At the time of hearing, Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws the attention of this Court to Section 33 of the said Act. 8. It is also submitted by Mr. Banerjee that an appeal under Section 33(1) of the said Act is to be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the impugned order subject to the proviso that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the statutory period of 30 days if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 9. At this juncture, Mr. Banerjee, took me to copy of the application for condonation of delay as preferred 3 by the present writ petitioners before the respondent No. 1 authority along with the appeal. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, that in paragraph 5, 6 & 7 of the said application for condonation of delay, the present writ petitioner being the appellant before the respondent no. 1 authority have categorically expressed the reason for not preferring the appeal within the period of 30 days. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that while passing the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, the respondent no. 1 authority failed to visualize the true spirit, purport and implication of the proviso of Section 33 of the said Act and thus, a serious miscarriage of justice occurred. 12. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Banerjee that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition and for remanding the matter back to the respondent no. 1 authority by condoning the delay. 13. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Sate supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 authority has rightly observed that the delay in filing appeal has not been properly explained and thus, declined to condone the delay. 14. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the contending parties and also on careful perusal of 4 the copy of the petition for condonation of delay it appears to this Court that in paragraph nos. 5, 6 & 7, the writ petitioner has assigned sufficient and cogent reason for not preferring the appeal within the period of 30 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. 15. It appears to this Court that the respondent no. 1 authority while deciding the application for condonation of delay had taken a hyper-technical approach which in considered view of this Court ought not to have done. 16. It further appears from the impugned order that despite holding that the application for condonation of delay is not acceptable, even then the respondent no. 1 authority made an endeavour to enter into the merits of the appeal which is unknown to the law. 17. In view of the observation made hereinabove the instant writ petition succeeds. 18. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 1 authority is hereby set aside. 19. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay as filed by the writ petitioner before the respondent no. 1 authority in filing the appeal under Section 33(1) of the said Act stands hereby allowed. 5 20. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 33(1) of the said Act on its merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties to the said appeal. 21. It is further directed that the appellants and the respondents of the said appeal shall appear before the respondent no. 1 authority positively within 15 working days from today along with server copy of this order and on such appearance, the respondent no. 1 authority shall fix a date of hearing of appeal and thereafter shall proceed with the hearing of the appeal in accordance with law and shall dispose of the appeal within 45 working days from the date of communication of this server copy of the order. 22. Before parting with, it is made clear that while disposing of the instant writ petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the appeal as preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 33(1) of the said Act and thus, all points are kept open for the adjudication by the respondent no. 1 authority. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)