KARTIK CHANDRA DAS v. NEMAI CHANDRA GHOSH CHAIRMAN MADHAYMGRAM MUNICIPALITY AND ORS
CPAN/1120/2024 · 2026-09-17
Amrita Sinha
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 41462 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 41462 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
S/L 24 17.09.2026 Court No.24 SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CPAN 1120 of 2024 In WPA 20587 of 2023
Kartik Chandra Das Vs. Nemai Chandra Ghosh & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Mondal Mr. Kisor Sk Mr. Sayed Hossain … for the Petitioner. Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami Mr. Parikshit Goswami … for the Contemnors.
1. The allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition was of an unauthorized construction by the private respondent over the petitioner’s plot of land.
2. In compliance of the direction passed by the Court, the Municipality enquired into the matter and failed to identify the plot of land where the alleged unauthorised construction had been made. The Municipality took the help of the land authority for identifying the plot of land.
3. The Revenue Officer, Barasat-II, Madhyamgram Municipality has forwarded the report to the BL&LRO dated May 13, 2026 wherefrom it appears that a spot inspection was conducted to identify the plot of land. It was found that the petitioner did not possess any land over which the unauthorized construction has been alleged to be made. The said plot of land is occupied by third parties.
2
4. From the report of the land authority, it appears that a dispute has cropped up with regard to proper identification of the plot where the construction is alleged to be made. The spot inspection report of the authority suggests that the petitioner is not in possession of the land over which he claims ownership.
5. As the petitioner is not in possession, the allegation of the petitioner that construction has been made by the private respondent over his plot of land cannot be properly ascertained and adjudicated by the Municipality.
6. There are several disputed question of facts have been cropped up. It will not be proper for this Court to enter into and adjudicate any of such dispute.
7. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, if so advised.
8. Contempt application stands disposed of.
9. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
10. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)